244 réponses à ce sujet

[TekFanX]

Well, many design-elements in ME2 where improved:
-More different locations for the Side-Missions.
-Better weapon-mechanics
-Armors, that look like armors and not like pyjamas
...

But then again, the RPG-Elements have been reduced in way too many ways, I'm agreeing completely on that:
-Inventory: Completely gone!
I'm not going to complain that I loved the ME1-Inventory, I did not.
But the inventory is bound to a great thing many people love in RPGs: Selling loot!
Not like in ME1, where most stuff was useless crap you sold with "click click click", but waging wether you pick up that part and leave this, because they could differ in value.

-Roleplaying:
Although Shepard has still wonderfull mimics with lots of detail, most of the helmets just blind out the eyes or many other parts of the face.
Seriously! That's nonsense!
I can choose between three options if I want to see my Shepards eyes: Headshot-visor, dr.pepper-sentry-interface and nothing.
The batarian repairing the gunship when recruiting archangel, can change his visor from "wielding" to transparency with on press of a button, but the main-char of the game lacks the ability?!

Powers:
The powers have lost a lot of importancy in ME2, since weapons became so great.
Sure, you can curve powers, a nice thing, but the funny physics-powers(push/throw) only work if you have easy enemies or if the next shot would kill the enemy.
And the other powers...well: In ME1 they where epic, throwing arround chairs and other parts in a room with no problem, now they are merely a different kind of weapons.

Items:
I like the upgrade-system they brought up in ME2, but it's way too basic.
I can't tune my weapon with precious parts I found on a mission, I just scan things and then get a bonus unlocked I can research with resources I have to gather in an annoying mining-game.
If I find an upgrade, it's giving me 10% more of something and maybe unlocks a faster cooldown or longer effect.
It's too flat, not deep enough. Many games manage to bring out standard-equipped weapons/armor that you can modify if you want to adapt to your playstyle, so people who don't want to dig into it don't have to, but ME2 lacks such a system.
Even a shooter like Crysis has more weapon-modification in it than ME2, which is a 3rd-person-shooter/rpg-hybrid.


The metaphor of ME2-haters I've read here is nonsense. Many people here like the game but miss the RPG-part.
Wishing for the game to have more content, doesn't mean to hate the game.

[mopotter]

LPPrince wrote...

I heard people complaining about ME2's non-shooting missions.

And remember, missions ≠ assignments.

Compare Feros, Noveria, Therum, Virmire, and Ilos to all the main recruitment/loyalty missions in ME2.

The missions in ME1 were better built. Especially Noveria, apparently. I constantly hear people bring up Noveria in other boards and in real life when referring to how a game's level should be built.

People complain about everything, myself included.  I think it must be in our nature.

I did like all of the ME1 missions, some more than others.  I also liked some of the ME2 missions.  Picking up Garrus, Mordin and Thane, I enjoyed.  Jack's loyalty mission Tali and actually Zaeed's loyalty mission were interesting for me.   And I enjoyed seeing the different cities, including Horizon. 

I could have done with less team members, but the more I play the more interesting they become and since the ones I would pick to stay probably would not be the ones someone else would pick, I'm fine with the number we have.

 

[Jackal904]

LPPrince wrote...

Jackal904 wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

I think we can all agree that an improved ME1(inventory, story, etc etc)+an improved ME2(combat)=ME3(the perfect game)

No we cannot, because I don't, and many other people don't.

LPPrince wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

One word regarding ME1's inventory: Pointless.

That's pretty debatable.

One word regarding ME2's inventory: Nonexistent.

An inventory system in ME2 is nonexistent because it was pointless in ME1.

Two questions for you-

A. What do you want ME3 to be then?

B. So you'd rather they scrap anything that's flawed instead of fix it and make it better?

A) An inventory does not make a game an rpg. The skill/stat progression does. I will admit the skill point system in ME2 isn't as complex as in ME1, but I will say that the ME1 skill point system was complex in the wrong ways. In ME1, each skill point added a very small bonus to each ability. In ME2, instead of having many skill points that each added small bonuses, they gave you less skill points that added larger bonuses. And one thing that adds some depth to ME2's skill system, which isn't in ME1, is the significance of maxing out a skill. When you max a skill it adds a very significant boost to it, such as giving the skill an AoE. In ME1, it was annoying to have to waste skill points into armor and weapons, in ME2 they gave those kinds of abilities their own upgrade system, which I think is far superior than in ME1. I don't want to waste skill points into armor when I'm an adept. I want to spend my points into biotics.

And I honestly would not mind it if ME3 was not an rpg (in the sense of having skill points and leveling up) and I had all my abilities available to me at the start of the game. In fact, that is how I played when the X+A glitch was available, and I had more fun that way with all my abilities maxed at the start. It made combat more fun having so many abilities at my disposal, which added depth to combat. It did not make the game too easy, because I simply cranked up the difficulty to either hardcore or insanity. I am a huge supporter of NG+ mode in rpg's for this very reason. While I do enjoy leveling up and gaining skill points and all that stuff, I really enjoy playing with a character that is maxed out.

But I also wouldn't mind if they kept the current system. Some more depth would be nice, with more skills available to put points into, but I wouldn't shed a tear if they kept the same system. I will be upset if they don't add any new abilities (although I'm sure they will), but if they kept the exact same system with a few new abilities, then I would be happy. I'd be happier if it was a little deeper, but like I said, either way I'm satisfied.


They did make it better, but it's not exactly an inventory system in the usual sense. You find new weapons throughout the game that are different from one another. And you can choose which weapon to use before each mission. Plus each weapon is unique in a specific way. Take the assault rifles in ME2 for example; one is fully automatic and has decent accuracy for short to mid range, one has burst fire for better range, and the other has a wide spread but fires very fast and has a huge clip which is good for short range only. In ME1, all weapons of a certain type were the same as every weapon of the same type, except with small variations in bullet damage and reticle bloom. Other than that they were virtually identical.

Instead of finding tons of different kinds or armor with slightly varying stats, you purchase unique armor pieces throughout shops in the game. Instead of having ammo types that were annoying to change in ME1, they were switched to ammo powers in ME2 which are much more convenient.

The inventory system from ME1 has simply been consolidated and streamlined in ME2 to eliminate the unnecessary aspects and burdens of the ME1 inventory system.

[Saremei]

I for one did not miss the inventory one single bit. It was the worst element of ME1.



What I did miss were the larger areas to explore. I miss the Mako and exploring any planets to find what may be there. The citadel was much too reduced in size as well. The other two hubs are also much too small. Storywise the game is as solid as the original, it's just the reduced exploration and freedom that bugs me. It's a similar annoyance to what I experienced with Final Fantasy X when I played it way back. I don't like being limited to small corridors separated by loading screens to explore, I prefer an overworld.

[Shotokanguy]

Ross42899 wrote...

MarchWaltz wrote...

I dont mind. It is more realistic. That being said, we should have way more armor and weapons.

Maybe it's more realistic but: IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A ROLE PLAYING GAME!!! If you take out 50% of the RPG elements you don't have an RPG but a 3rd Person shooter with some dialogue options.

If you want a realistic game, play Flight Simulater or something like that.

It's supposed to be a Role Playing Game

and a THIRD PERSON SHOOTER


I think we need a sticky topic for this - it can say "Hey everyone! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MASS EFFECT SHOULD BE LIKE!"

The devs know what type of game they're trying to create, not you. If you want Alpha Protocol instead, go play it. That's pure RPG.

Mass Effect is its own game.

[mopotter]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Ross42899 wrote...

MarchWaltz wrote...

I dont mind. It is more realistic. That being said, we should have way more armor and weapons.

Maybe it's more realistic but: IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A ROLE PLAYING GAME!!! If you take out 50% of the RPG elements you don't have an RPG but a 3rd Person shooter with some dialogue options.

If you want a realistic game, play Flight Simulater or something like that.

It's supposed to be a Role Playing Game

and a THIRD PERSON SHOOTER


I think we need a sticky topic for this - it can say "Hey everyone! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MASS EFFECT SHOULD BE LIKE!"

The devs know what type of game they're trying to create, not you. If you want Alpha Protocol instead, go play it. That's pure RPG.

Mass Effect is its own game.

Nope, ME can not be a third person shooter.  I don't play shooters.  I play wonderful stories with wonderfully developed characters like Mr and Ms Shepard,   NPC relationships and  comradery with guns.  Shooters are things like Gears of War,  games I don't play.   Nope can't be a third person shooter.  Have to find a new name.  
Fun with Guns.  That will work.  
Sorry  just the term third person shooter make my hands shake..  
 

[Epic777]

Saremei wrote...

I for one did not miss the inventory one single bit. It was the worst element of ME1.

What I did miss were the larger areas to explore. I miss the Mako and exploring any planets to find what may be there. The citadel was much too reduced in size as well. The other two hubs are also much too small. Storywise the game is as solid as the original, it's just the reduced exploration and freedom that bugs me. It's a similar annoyance to what I experienced with Final Fantasy X when I played it way back. I don't like being limited to small corridors separated by loading screens to explore, I prefer an overworld.

I did like exploring for the 1st few
side quests however the it became more of a chore by the end. The
biggest problem for me was the actual battle environments were the
same and the only scenario end up simply kill everything, I liked in me2
there were timed missions, king of the the hill timed emissions etc.

[Dragonfliet]

So I wrote an exceptionally long discussion of this. That's just the first part, and the link to the second part is embedded at the end.

To quickly summarize, however: I don't get all of the inventory whining. It is as if people are complaining that the developers decided that in the Game they are Playing the Role of an elite special forces soldier whereas they wanted to be a merchant, buying and selling junk lying around the levels. They never stop to think how ridiculous it is that a poor colonist is better equipped than the most elite of the most elite government agents or that on a mission to save the world you stop every 3 steps to pick up pair of discarded gloves or are carrying 16 sets of armor with you.

Mass Effect 2 is a Role Playing Game, not an RPG; it is designed to tell a story about a specific character, not adhere slavishly to the Dungeons and Dragons model of rules and conventions. It's like getting mad that Brick is a modern film noir, but it isn't filmed in black and white or that the quest in V., essentially the reason for the novel to exist, is an illusory and impossible one. That your expectations have not been adhered to doesn't mean there is a problem with the game, it means you need to adapt.

Modifié par Dragonfliet, 26 juillet 2010 - 05:35 .

[LPPrince]

Dragonfliet wrote...

it means you need to adapt.

So what's wrong with ME1's inventory system adapting to be better?

[Dragonfliet]

LPPrince wrote...

Dragonfliet wrote...

it means you need to adapt.

So what's wrong with ME1's inventory system adapting to be better?

Well, I recommend reading the link as it goes on and on and answers the question quite thoroughly.

That being said: it makes zero sense to have any sort of inventory in ME. Commander Shepard is a super elite soldier on a mission to save the universe: Why would he not have the best weapons available to him? He wouldn't need to find them around the levels, he would simply have them supplied, which is the case in ME2--the only choices in weapons (with the exception of the new versions that unlock a bit in) is how you want to use them (ie: do you want a machine pistol for shields or a hand cannon for armor?). The upgrades you find are tweaks that you find and give you to your scientist to apply to your awesome, top of the line weapons.

Blackhawk Down isn't filled with moments where the soldiers loot each and every Somali soldier they take down. James Bond doesn't systematically open every single crate and grab outdated, unhelpful weapons to sell later. You are a soldier on a mission being supplied by elite organizations, not a hobo trying to eat or a mercenary trying to eke out every cent possible; it makes no sense to stop in the middle of grabbing necessary documents (why you're there) to fill your pockets with knicknacks to sell to a street vendor.

It works in a game like Dragon Age where you literally have no support and you are not just a soldier, but you must take care of yourself and outfit your party. Mass Effect is about super soldiers and top secret government (or paramilitary) organizations. There is absolutely no narrative room for scavenging. It is stupid and ridiculous in every single way in this type of game.

[LPPrince]

Dragonfliet wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Dragonfliet wrote...

it means you need to adapt.

So what's wrong with ME1's inventory system adapting to be better?

Well, I recommend reading the link as it goes on and on and answers the question quite thoroughly.

That being said: it makes zero sense to have any sort of inventory in ME. Commander Shepard is a super elite soldier on a mission to save the universe: Why would he not have the best weapons available to him? He wouldn't need to find them around the levels, he would simply have them supplied, which is the case in ME2--the only choices in weapons (with the exception of the new versions that unlock a bit in) is how you want to use them (ie: do you want a machine pistol for shields or a hand cannon for armor?). The upgrades you find are tweaks that you find and give you to your scientist to apply to your awesome, top of the line weapons.

Blackhawk Down isn't filled with moments where the soldiers loot each and every Somali soldier they take down. James Bond doesn't systematically open every single crate and grab outdated, unhelpful weapons to sell later. You are a soldier on a mission being supplied by elite organizations, not a hobo trying to eat or a mercenary trying to eke out every cent possible; it makes no sense to stop in the middle of grabbing necessary documents (why you're there) to fill your pockets with knicknacks to sell to a street vendor.

It works in a game like Dragon Age where you literally have no support and you are not just a soldier, but you must take care of yourself and outfit your party. Mass Effect is about super soldiers and top secret government (or paramilitary) organizations. There is absolutely no narrative room for scavenging. It is stupid and ridiculous in every single way in this type of game.

By that logic, its stupid and ridiculous in every game its ever been implemented in, since no one in their right mind could carry so much stuff, or goes around looking for this kind of stuff, or finds this kind of stuff everywhere they go.

Suspension of belief.

[kraze07]

Most ME1 fans wanted the inventory system and the mako improved ( i personally didn't find anything wrong with the mako or exploring), but instead they were removed completely. ME2 felt way too streamlined even for a game that's an action/rpg hybrid.

Instead of removing the inventory system they could've at least implemented a system similar to Dues Ex or Resident Evil were players are just limited in how many different weapons they could carry while armor, omni tools, biotic amps, and weapons mods would have a GUI similar to KOTOR for equipping and be selected on the Normandy or some other safe haven type of location.

If I, just another random gamer, can come up with an ALTERNATIVE to a system many people didn't like, then the devs sure as hell should've been able to do it.

Modifié par kraze07, 26 juillet 2010 - 06:50 .

[LPPrince]

kraze07 wrote...

Most ME1 fans wanted the inventory system and the mako improved ( i personally didn't find anything wrong with the mako or exploring), but instead they were removed completely. ME2 felt way too streamlined even for a game that's an action/rpg hybrid.

Instead of removing the inventory system they could've at least implemented a system similar to Dues Ex or Resident Evil were players are just limited in how many different weapons they could carry while armor, omni tools, biotic amps, and weapons mods would have a GUI similar to KOTOR for equipping and be selected on the Normandy or some other safe haven type of location.

If I, just another random gamer, can come up with an ALTERNATIVE to a system many people didn't like, then the devs sure as hell should've been able to do it.

I don't like the way RE games handle it. But yeah, it should've been revamped, not eliminated.

[Dragonfliet]

LPPrince wrote...

Dragonfliet wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Dragonfliet wrote...

it means you need to adapt.

So what's wrong with ME1's inventory system adapting to be better?

Well, I recommend reading the link as it goes on and on and answers the question quite thoroughly.

That being said: it makes zero sense to have any sort of inventory in ME. Commander Shepard is a super elite soldier on a mission to save the universe: Why would he not have the best weapons available to him? He wouldn't need to find them around the levels, he would simply have them supplied, which is the case in ME2--the only choices in weapons (with the exception of the new versions that unlock a bit in) is how you want to use them (ie: do you want a machine pistol for shields or a hand cannon for armor?). The upgrades you find are tweaks that you find and give you to your scientist to apply to your awesome, top of the line weapons.

Blackhawk Down isn't filled with moments where the soldiers loot each and every Somali soldier they take down. James Bond doesn't systematically open every single crate and grab outdated, unhelpful weapons to sell later. You are a soldier on a mission being supplied by elite organizations, not a hobo trying to eat or a mercenary trying to eke out every cent possible; it makes no sense to stop in the middle of grabbing necessary documents (why you're there) to fill your pockets with knicknacks to sell to a street vendor.

It works in a game like Dragon Age where you literally have no support and you are not just a soldier, but you must take care of yourself and outfit your party. Mass Effect is about super soldiers and top secret government (or paramilitary) organizations. There is absolutely no narrative room for scavenging. It is stupid and ridiculous in every single way in this type of game.

By that logic, its stupid and ridiculous in every game its ever been implemented in, since no one in their right mind could carry so much stuff, or goes around looking for this kind of stuff, or finds this kind of stuff everywhere they go.

Suspension of belief.

Like I said, in a game like DA:  O, where you must support and outfit your group as you have no means of taking care of yourselves otherwise, having an inventory system and a buying/selling/crafting system makes sense. The concept being that these people bring backpacks full of gear with them because they are literally carrying all of their earthly goods with them (except for what is left at camp) and need to be prepared for all situations.

Also like I said, this doesn't apply at all to ME. It makes no sense for them to find better weapons on every person they fight and it makes no sense to need to scour the level looking for loot in order to be decently equipped when they have a massive entity supporting them and their missions are specificly outlined ahead of time where the player knows what they're going into, what enemies they'll be fighting, etc.

ME2 did it right for this type of narrative and DA: O did it right for its type of narrative. One shouldn't cram the system of one into another just because they're both types of role playing games. There is suspension of disbelief (wait, I know they need to be prepared, but 200 items in their backpacks!) and then there is just being ridiculous (wait, my super elite soldier not only carries fifteen changes of clothes on every mission, but he has to scavenge guns from random people in order to buy himself a new one? His organization provides nothing?)--just as it is suspension of disbelief to buy into James Bond doing his stunts, but it is ridiculous that a major criminal organization's entire goal is to double the price of utility costs.

Honestly, what narrative justification is there for Shepard to find it necessary to pick up every bit and scrap on every mission and then go to vendors to buy/sell/barter all of the random junk he collects? I can't think of a single thing (as the story so far has gone) and it is a ridiculous hold over that, let's be honest, doesn't really add any gameplay. I mean, it's not like you're really excercising skill in clicking on the loot and then looking at the stat, realizing it's lower and clicking to sell it.

Lastly: I exhort you to click that link in my first post. You're interested in arguing, so why not read a complete point of view to agree/disagree with?

Modifié par Dragonfliet, 26 juillet 2010 - 07:22 .

[Epic777]

kraze07 wrote...

Most ME1 fans wanted the inventory system and the mako improved ( i personally didn't find anything wrong with the mako or exploring), but instead they were removed completely. ME2 felt way too streamlined even for a game that's an action/rpg hybrid.

Instead of removing the inventory system they could've at least implemented a system similar to Dues Ex or Resident Evil were players are just limited in how many different weapons they could carry while armor, omni tools, biotic amps, and weapons mods would have a GUI similar to KOTOR for equipping and be selected on the Normandy or some other safe haven type of location.

If I, just another random gamer, can come up with an ALTERNATIVE to a system many people didn't like, then the devs sure as hell should've been able to do it.

While I didn't miss the inventory from me1, in my previous post: http://social.biowar...38637/2#3239950
I argue that the main problem with me1 inventory woes came from the numerous items, its not like you do a certain side-quest, beat a certain boss or level and are rewarded with (insert cool gun/item etc.).With me1 weapons, mods even armor most became quickly redundant as each one was marginally better than the last set. Once a player got Spectre weapons, 99% of all equipment became useless, only fit for selling omni gelling. 

[Water Dumple]

Personally, I welcomed the end of ME1's inventory system and still wouldn't go back to it. The whole thing felt completely bogged down by its unorganized listing, and it was always completely clogged with random items many of which wouldn't really make a noticeable difference. It was cumbersome and time-consuming to go through everything. I don't think the idea of an inventory system is entirely incompatible with Mass Effect in general, but when removing entire content improves a sequel...there's a clear problem with your design.



Mass Effect 2 just needed more choices with the system; rather than having 2 weapons with one practically being a flat-out upgrade to the other, there should be many weapons in each category each with advantages and disadvantages, allowing the player to decide which is best based on his playstyle and situation. There could be bolt action snipers, semi-auto snipers, burstfire assault rifles, semi-auto assault rifles, full-auto assault rifles, pump shotguns, auto shotguns, LMGs, even HMGs, the list goes on.

[Shotokanguy]

Water Dumple wrote...

Mass Effect 2 just needed more choices with the system; rather than having 2 weapons with one practically being a flat-out upgrade to the other, there should be many weapons in each category each with advantages and disadvantages, allowing the player to decide which is best based on his playstyle and situation. There could be bolt action snipers, semi-auto snipers, burstfire assault rifles, semi-auto assault rifles, full-auto assault rifles, pump shotguns, auto shotguns, LMGs, even HMGs, the list goes on.

I see this complaint so often, like many others, and it just isn't a true complaint...almost every weapon can still be used fine. The Avenger is definitely useful at the end of the game if you don't have the Revenant, for example.

[Throw_this_away]

I like the ammo system... and am happy the inventory is gone.  Inventories of 150 items are unrealistic and kill the immersion. 

[casedawgz]

I basically don't care to even participate in arguments like this. I love ME2, I think its a far superior game to its predecessor, and I'm fairly confident that ME3 will follow more in ME2's footsteps than ME1's regardless. My needs are being catered to. Fine by me.

[Heliosas]

ME2 was an all round better game than ME1 but I did wish for more armour/weapon options and for more planets to explore.



I missed the exploration of ME1. True some of the mako stuff was dull but at least I felt like I was in a universe I could explore. Rather than ME2 where you just land at the front door of a complex, kills a few baddies and then enter. Although I have to say the locations in ME2 were prettier and unique. Unlike ME1 where many buildings/locations were essentially the same.



Basically for ME3 I hope they mix it up a little. I can't help but feel if they mixed in the good parts of ME1 with ME2, that we would have the best game of the series.

[Roamingmachine]

ME2 was a good game in itself.It shouldn't be compared with ME1 though.Completely diffrent genres.ME1 is an rpg and ME2 is an adventure shooter.

For me, it is ME1 that is the superior game of the two but only because i'm partial towards rpgs and absolutely despise handholding by games.Yeah, the inventory desperately needed filters and when it came to guns clear distincions between the diffrent manufacturers should have been implemented.The modding made up for the lack of variation though.Loved it and it made all the diffrence if you bothered to use it. Customization and freedom of choice made ME1 interesting even when you were doing the lesser assignments.Could have used more cutscenes/banter around the hubs and assignments though.A screen of text simply will not do.

I did enjoy ME2 as well.Just not in the same way as ME1.Plot was still as strong as ever and the hugely expanded amount of banter&dialogue made it great as did the interactivity scenes with paragon/renegade actions.The removal of true customization of gear and character and most freedom of choice along with exploration is a steep price to pay for the positives though and drops the game out of the rpg genre in to adventure shooter.The action sequences are just plain railroad shooting that give me flasbacks to my army days in the shooting range :/ It's not a good thing that you can see that you can be ambushed a mile away just by looking at the terrain and seeing that it's setup like a paintball course.Thankfully squadmates make it interesting with their banter and cutscenes.Also, the heatclip was a complete screwup on the part of the design.But in the end, the plot alone was enough to carry the game for me and enjoy it overall

[Terror_K]

ME2 shouldn't have been an almost completely different game from ME1 though. The Mass Effect games are supposed to be a trilogy, not three different games.

[Minister of Sound]

Eh, I think people are exaggerating the alleged flaws of the inventory system in ME1. It's not like we were picking up "Damaged Onyx Armor" then later we find a "Holy Onyx Armor of the Bat".

[Il Divo]

Dragonfliet wrote...

So I wrote an exceptionally long discussion of this. That's just the first part, and the link to the second part is embedded at the end.

This...is a very well-written post. It hits home on several key RPG elements that Mass Effect suffered from rather than benefitted. Any chance of a part 3 of any kind?

[Dragonfliet]

Il Divo wrote...

Dragonfliet wrote...

So I wrote an exceptionally long discussion of this. That's just the first part, and the link to the second part is embedded at the end.

This...is a very well-written post. It hits home on several key RPG elements that Mass Effect suffered from rather than benefitted. Any chance of a part 3 of any kind?

Glad you liked it. There is a part 3 of sorts, but it is waiting on me to finish the Monkey Island remake and then play through DA Awakening as I want to rip apart the conversation system, relationships and progression of time (Monkey Island, ME, DA:O and Heavy Rain all in one essay...), so it'll probably be two weeks or so before I get to it.