Commander Sheppard by ~Hunter198 on deviantArt

I am currently addicted to BioWare games (Mass Effect 1, 2; Dragon Age) and almost every time I mention how much do I like them, Dilyan says they are using the same engine and it is basically like playing the same game over and over again. His argument — a little has changed since Neverwinter Nights in terms of gameplay. My question – how much does that matter? Is a game less appealing just because the gameplay is the same as in another game before it?

I have never actually paid much attention to what buttons do I use or whether the spells/abilities of the characters are different in a new RPG game. I care about the story and do not care whether my mage is using a spell called Fireblast or Fireball, or whether I choose from a radial menu or a drop menu. I actually prefer to have similar or the same controls, abilities, menus in several games, because then I can focus on the story from the beginning. Any sort of confusion or delay in the initial hours of gameplay always annoy me. Thus, I am happy when I do not have to get used to a new set of controls or some changes to the interface. I do admit some of the changes can be very useful (in case of Mass Effect 2 the changes made from the first one were amazing), but I would be happy even if they did not change much.

Of course, I cannot expect everyone to agree with me and I accept that. However, I needed to ask the question how many people actually see the similarities in gameplay in ME 1,2, Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights as a negative thing? Is that something many gamers expect from a new game — to give them a chance of exploring new ways of playing, new abilities, spells, character specifics?

I actually do not see so much similarities to the games BioWare makes, so as to say their products are good, but it is the same shit with a new design.