I think they just did some major damage to their own game and it's probably reception among the core audience of RPG gamers.
To explain this to some people:
What makes a game an RPG is the stats. The storyline and so on are irrelevent to whether something is an RPG or not. A shooter, fighting game, or whatever else can have a storyline without being an RPG.
The point of an RPG is that it's the abillities of the character your controlling that determine success or failure, NOT your abillities as a player. The idea being that in swinging a sword for example, the idea is resolved by the sword skill and attributes of Dwarg The Warrior, and a dice roll to determine chance (various random factors), as opposed to your abillity to get up and actually manuver a sword or something representing one.
The reason why a shooter can never be an RPG is because at it's core a shooter is dependant on the abillity of the player to move the character and aim the weapon. It's not a matter of how good Commander Shepard, or whomever your controlling is, it comes down to YOUR abillity to twitch.
The original "Mass Effect" was more of a hybrid because while in real time, aiming and moving the character was tertiary compared to having the right skills and weapons for the job. A veteran shooter player could aim a gun perfectly and miss (even at point blank) if their character didn't have good enough stats to make a shot. Likewise, a lobster accountaint who has problems even holding their silverware the right way at the dinner table, could make a REALLY impressive shot with minimal effort if their stats and gear were built up to the right levels.
The idea being that a guy who has NO skill at shooters whatsoever can effectively play the game like a master, while a guy who is very skilled at shooters, can wind up being unable to shoot effectively at all with an inappropriate character build for it.
Customization, story, moral desicians, all of those are good things, but they can apply to ANY game, and do not make it an RPG, no matter how much people want to insist otherwise. Heck, for those who actually PLAYED PnP RPGs, especially decades ago, your probably faimilar with the schism in the subculture about Storytelling games Vs. real RPG games. The basic arguement that while a good story improves an RPG, it's hardly nessicary to the experience, as one can have a perfectly entertaining dungeon crawl without needing a massive plot or constant NPC interaction. Not to mention the simple fact that RPGs existed before anyone decided "hey, let's tell a story and use these mechanics as part of it".
Right now "RPG" has become a buzzword that is decaying it's meaning. It's used for games that are NOT RPGs to try and present them as being deeper, and smarter, than they actually are.
See, "Mass Effect 2" is a game that any goober can sit down and play. You don't need to understand how things work, all you need to do is watch some computer generated cartoons hooked up to a "choose your own adventurer" selection mechanic (which might not even have any major influance on what happens, since the same basic events tend to happen no matter what you do), and then twitchy finger your way through the rest of the game where the closest thing to "depth" is watching how many bullets are in your gun.
Hooking Saturday Morning Cartoons up to "Gears Of War" does *NOT* make something an RPG, or in any way make it more inteligent or deeper.
Of course the issue is that with gaming catering to the lowest human denominator, games that are more of a cereberal exercise simply are not that popular or profitable. Making a game too smart, cuts down on it's potential audience, and the amount of money that can be made off of it. HOWEVER a game that can take the lowest denominator and make them feel smart, by say sticking an RPG label on it, can of course generate a lot more appeal, similar to how a teacher might go around sticking a little star on the artwork assignments of students to make the kids churning out the scribbles seem special.
Apologies if that isn't flattering to a lot of people, but that's how I see it, and with an issue like this it's hard to mince words while being accurate with the criticisms.
My basic attitude is that we already have Halo and Gears Of War, so there is no real reason why "Mass Efect" can't remain an RPG. RPGs are still going to make a pretty solid profit, and I see no real reason why developers have to keep chasing the biggest possible piles of money once you get to the point of producing a decent profit. If everyone stays at the "Gears Of Money" level, then gaming is hardly goibng to continue to progress as a medium, or reach the heights we all know it can attain. Down the road if gaming keeps progressing and causes it's fan base to grow in it's sophistication, it will garner profits well beyond what we see now, producers and developers need to put more thought into th elong term.
