244 réponses à ce sujet

[Shotokanguy]

^Yeah, stuff like that won't fly. Making up an arbitrary limit on how many Avengers we can have just to create something different and more "RPG" like isn't good enough.



There's also the conflict with the lore that establishes that the SR2 has a minifacturing locker. They can make guns, there shouldn't be a limit.

[LPPrince]

Lumikki wrote...

LPPrince wrote...


WEAPONS- Give weapons their own inventory system. You can have more than one of said weapon, say a limit of 5 each(5 Avengers, 5 Vindicators, etc etc). Each weapon can have its own upgrades, which leads me to-

UPGRADES- Upgrades are accessed in the weapon's inventory system(like ME1). Weapons are set to have specific upgrades, 1-3 depending on the weapon itself(Avenger gets 1 upgrade, Vindicator gets 2, Revenant gets 3). Not gonna list the various amounts of upgrades, but they'd follow the same vein as the ME1 upgrades, or maybe new ones. Can't think of what kind of upgrades.

AMMO- Give ammo types their own separate category on the wheel(not in inventory). Every character no matter Soldier or Engineer or whatever, gets access to all of them.

Are these induvidual items in inventory list? Meaning, do You see induvidual items, when You put some items to some character use, it lowers amount of items in inventory list?

Example you say 5 Avenger weapon? What that means? Is there 5 different version of same weapon?

Well, we can do it two ways-

A. You get 5 Avenger Assault Rifles. As in you can buy/sell 5 of them.
B. You get one Avenger, but in the menu you can set up a few variations on it.

Take your pick. I came up with all that on the fly, its not like I had time to think it out.

The best part of my idea was the ammo being separate thing. I really wish they did that.

[Lumikki]

LPPrince wrote...

The best part of my idea was the ammo being separate thing. I really
wish they did that.

Yep, I also wish that ammos would be ammos, not powers.

Well, we can do it two ways-

A. You get 5 Avenger Assault Rifles. As in you can buy/sell 5 of them.
B. You get one Avenger, but in the menu you can set up a few variations on it.

Take your pick. I came up with all that on the fly, its not like I had time to think it out.

Think more, because major different  between ME1 and ME2 was that there is no induvidual items in ME2.

Meaning there is only one Avenger Assult Riffle and no other weapon is like that. Meaning You could upgrade it, but it's still same one weapon. That's how ME2 solved the junk item problem, what was cause multible versions of same weapons. How ever, if there is no induvidual items, then inventory list as showing induvidual stuff isn't anymore needed.

Here is the difference.

In ME1 you go and buy any item and it drops in you inventory as induvidual item.
In ME2 you go and buy any item and it drops you reasearch or customation option, ONLY if you don't have that item allready.

In ME2 every item exist only ONE time for player. Meaning, if you have found or buyed Avenger Assult Riffle, you will have it allways as option to use. How ever, it's only showed in weapon choises as one time, even if it's modified. There is no other version of same weapon.

[Terror_K]

Shotokanguy wrote...

^Yeah, stuff like that won't fly. Making up an arbitrary limit on how many Avengers we can have just to create something different and more "RPG" like isn't good enough.

There's also the conflict with the lore that establishes that the SR2 has a minifacturing locker. They can make guns, there shouldn't be a limit.

There should be a limit, otherwise you could logically create an unlimited amount of weapons and sell them off indefinitely, thus becoming even richer than ME1 let you become and breaking the entire galactic economy at the same time.

Perhaps this is how Cerberus gets all its money, hmmm?

[LPPrince]

Terror_K wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

^Yeah, stuff like that won't fly. Making up an arbitrary limit on how many Avengers we can have just to create something different and more "RPG" like isn't good enough.

There's also the conflict with the lore that establishes that the SR2 has a minifacturing locker. They can make guns, there shouldn't be a limit.

There should be a limit, otherwise you could logically create an unlimited amount of weapons and sell them off indefinitely, thus becoming even richer than ME1 let you become and breaking the entire galactic economy at the same time.

Perhaps this is how Cerberus gets all its money, hmmm?

If there was no limit, we'd make billions of credits way too easy.

So yeah, there has to be a limit.

[Terror_K]

I'd have personally tied it into the minerals and elements you have to get. You get the first gun for Shepard for free, but if you want to give your companions copies and have them with something beyond the base selection of each weapon type, you gotta spend resources to do so. Guns aren't made of nothing after all.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 juillet 2010 - 10:17 .

[Gorn Kregore]

LPPrince wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

>implying mass effect 1 wasn't like that

ME1 WASN'T like that.

In ME1, you had driving sequences, ports, whole hubs, shops, minigames, etc etc.

You get none of that in ME2. We land, we run and shoot, we leave. That's it.

im sorry i just laughed at all that

a awful driving sequence = good?

ports = uh ok???

whole hubs = hey guys i copy paste terrain 2 show off my artistic skills like bethesda!

shops = even more useless than it is in ME2

minigames =  lol

[Whatever42]

As long as the game is perfectly viable without my Shepard stripping the dead of their loot and selling their gold fillings at the pawn shop, I don't care.



I agree that more customizability would be good but carrying around bags of useless crap breaks the immersion too much.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Meh. I couldn't be more "meh" about his issue. Inventory and looting as an important rpg feature is really overrated IMO. Damn, I wish all C/WRPGs in general didn't have so many useless items.

MarchWaltz wrote...



That being said, we should have way more armor and weapons.

Definitely. DLC equipment says we would have more armor and weapons. Sad they are CHARGING for it. Not that the equipment on the game is not enough but I like the DLC weapons and wish they were there the first time I played or free. Armors I don't really care, just the N7 parts because the absence of a toggle helmet option makes the DLC armor an automatic no for me.

[haberman13]

ME2 was a huge letdown RPG-wise for these reasons (and subsequently a letdown game IMO):

1. Removal of a "paper" doll that allows me to "equip" items/find items, sure I can technically go to the "computer" on the ship and equip things but ... meh, I like diablo/morrowind/DAO etc., it just feels dopey in ME2
2. Pay for "gear" in the form of DLC, further cheapening the equipment element. (and a huge lol, paying for gear in a single player game I had already beat which already has failed gear-wise, no thanks)
3. The "streamlininig" of the game: loading screens, insta-ports, etc.

ME2 made me sad, very sad, kind of like when I played Oblivion for the first time.

(though, fully modded, I now love Oblivion)

Modifié par haberman13, 27 juillet 2010 - 11:06 .

[IrishSpectre257]

I can live without an inventory system. I just wish the weapon/armor upgrade system was deeper.

[CatatonicMan]

The biggest issue with ME2 as far as I can see actually doesn't stem from the game itself, but rather from the fact that it is a sequel.



ME2 works perfectly fine as a game. It's mechanics are functional, it's experience is fun and memorable, and it is generally well executed on the whole. It has it's flaws like all games, but they aren't generally critical or game breaking. Some liked it, and some didn't - just like every other game.



ME1 also worked perfectly fine: functional mechanics, fun, good experience, well executed, with some irritating but not game breaking flaws. Again, it was liked by some and disliked by others.



The problems arise because ME2 is a direct sequel from ME1. ME2 is quite a different game than ME1; they are similar in the basic premise, but differ massively in the implementation. Unfortunately, this means that anyone who bought ME2 thinking that it would be ME1+1 (like most direct sequels) was going to find a game that was quite different that what they anticipated. It is fairly obvious to me that unless a player enjoyed the changes, they would be out for the blood of the one who messed up the game.



The same thing would have happened if ME2 had come first.



The issue is not one of mechanics, but instead of performing radical changes to a direct sequel.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 28 juillet 2010 - 01:19 .

[Pocketgb]

Notice the flak a band receives for trying something new? Exactly what we're seeing here.

Notice the flak a band receives for doing the same thing? Likely what we could've been seeing here.

[Shotokanguy]

Terror_K wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

^Yeah, stuff like that won't fly. Making up an arbitrary limit on how many Avengers we can have just to create something different and more "RPG" like isn't good enough.

There's also the conflict with the lore that establishes that the SR2 has a minifacturing locker. They can make guns, there shouldn't be a limit.

There should be a limit, otherwise you could logically create an unlimited amount of weapons and sell them off indefinitely, thus becoming even richer than ME1 let you become and breaking the entire galactic economy at the same time.

Perhaps this is how Cerberus gets all its money, hmmm?

Again...the lore handled that. Minifacturing isn't like "poof, here's you assault rifle". They can't just make them over and over, there's just enough for the crew.

[Computer_God91]

CatatonicMan wrote...

The biggest issue with ME2 as far as I can see actually doesn't stem from the game itself, but rather from the fact that it is a sequel.

ME2 works perfectly fine as a game. It's mechanics are functional, it's experience is fun and memorable, and it is generally well executed on the whole. It has it's flaws like all games, but they aren't generally critical or game breaking. Some liked it, and some didn't - just like every other game.

ME1 also worked perfectly fine: functional mechanics, fun, good experience, well executed, with some irritating but not game breaking flaws. Again, it was liked by some and disliked by others.

The problems arise because ME2 is a direct sequel from ME1. ME2 is quite a different game than ME1; they are similar in the basic premise, but differ massively in the implementation. Unfortunately, this means that anyone who bought ME2 thinking that it would be ME1+1 (like most direct sequels) was going to find a game that was quite different that what they anticipated. It is fairly obvious to me that unless a player enjoyed the changes, they would be out for the blood of the one who messed up the game.

The same thing would have happened if ME2 had come first.

The issue is not one of mechanics, but instead of performing radical changes to a direct sequel.

I agree with you.

Also I like how Geoff being a hugh ME1 fan didn't name ME2 first and seemed, to me at least, to almost forget to mention ME2.

[Terror_K]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Again...the lore handled that. Minifacturing isn't like "poof, here's you assault rifle". They can't just make them over and over, there's just enough for the crew.

How convenient... <_<

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

Again...the lore handled that. Minifacturing isn't like "poof, here's you assault rifle". They can't just make them over and over, there's just enough for the crew.

How convenient... <_<

It's the same kind of lore that explains why the bullet physics work the same regardless of the environment you're in. It too is incredibly convenient.

Now I'm going to read you're mind: The lore describing thermal clips in ME2 is pretty shallow. If they explained that they only way they could improve weapon proficiency and effectiveness (i.e. more damage) were to go back in regards to technology (no more unlimited ammo, back to limited clips) then it would be a step on the right track to making more sense.

[LPPrince]

CatatonicMan wrote...

The biggest issue with ME2 as far as I can see actually doesn't stem from the game itself, but rather from the fact that it is a sequel.

ME2 works perfectly fine as a game. It's mechanics are functional, it's experience is fun and memorable, and it is generally well executed on the whole. It has it's flaws like all games, but they aren't generally critical or game breaking. Some liked it, and some didn't - just like every other game.

ME1 also worked perfectly fine: functional mechanics, fun, good experience, well executed, with some irritating but not game breaking flaws. Again, it was liked by some and disliked by others.

The problems arise because ME2 is a direct sequel from ME1. ME2 is quite a different game than ME1; they are similar in the basic premise, but differ massively in the implementation. Unfortunately, this means that anyone who bought ME2 thinking that it would be ME1+1 (like most direct sequels) was going to find a game that was quite different that what they anticipated. It is fairly obvious to me that unless a player enjoyed the changes, they would be out for the blood of the one who messed up the game.

The same thing would have happened if ME2 had come first.

The issue is not one of mechanics, but instead of performing radical changes to a direct sequel.

This is exactly right.

The problem people have with ME2 is that its TOO different from ME1.

Note that many people say, "??? Element was REMOVED".

If ME2 was first and ME1 was second, people would complain THAT was too different.

That's why I'm hoping ME3 is more a blend of the two.

[LPPrince]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

Again...the lore handled that. Minifacturing isn't like "poof, here's you assault rifle". They can't just make them over and over, there's just enough for the crew.

How convenient... <_<

It's the same kind of lore that explains why the bullet physics work the same regardless of the environment you're in. It too is incredibly convenient.

Now I'm going to read you're mind: The lore describing thermal clips in ME2 is pretty shallow. If they explained that they only way they could improve weapon proficiency and effectiveness (i.e. more damage) were to go back in regards to technology (no more unlimited ammo, back to limited clips) then it would be a step on the right track to making more sense.

I feel they should've handled heat sinks like this-

Instead of picking up ammo(per se), you pick up heat sinks, and THAT is what is counted.

Ammo is infinite, but when your weapon overheats, you can use one of your 20 something(example) heat sinks to quickly begin firing again.

That's what I was hoping ME2's system was going to be like. Instead, it was just going back to limited ammo, just with a different name.

[Custodire]

I don't mind that we lost the inventory. It was a waste of my time.



I mind that we lost the role-play aspect in favour of a binary evil/ good alignment system.

[LPPrince]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

>implying mass effect 1 wasn't like that

ME1 WASN'T like that.

In ME1, you had driving sequences, ports, whole hubs, shops, minigames, etc etc.

You get none of that in ME2. We land, we run and shoot, we leave. That's it.

im sorry i just laughed at all that

a awful driving sequence = good?

ports = uh ok???

whole hubs = hey guys i copy paste terrain 2 show off my artistic skills like bethesda!

shops = even more useless than it is in ME2

minigames =  lol

I'd laugh with you if there was anything to laugh at.

Take Noveria for example-

You landed at a port, and then went straight to a hub.

You then had multiple ways of leaving said hub, and was put into a very good driving sequence.

After that, you completed a mini-game and went into a maze which eventually led to yet another hub(of sorts).

You had multiple ways of going from there to the final battle, and then you were finished.

Noveria could be completed either very quickly or very slowly. It was up to the player.

That variety is not in ME2.

ME2 main missions(comparing fairly to Noveria) were pretty much just landing, shooting, and leaving.

Horizon, Grun't mission, Jack's mission, Collector Ship, Miranda's Loyalty, etc etc were all pretty much just landing and shooting.

That's the point I was trying to make.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Now I'm going to read you're mind: The lore describing thermal clips in ME2 is pretty shallow. If they explained that they only way they could improve weapon proficiency and effectiveness (i.e. more damage) were to go back in regards to technology (no more unlimited ammo, back to limited clips) then it would be a step on the right track to making more sense.

This is true. If they said something like the heat from the guns is so much in more modern weapons that they'd physically damage them and heat sinks were a way of stopping this then it may have made more sense and been somewhat logical (a little like when computer processors started needed fans build onto them because the normal one no longer sufficed).

But I still find it hard to believe no matter what the reason behind it, no matter how logical it was, that in a space of two years and twelve days that the entire known universe goes from having the old system to the new one without any old guns being left. I find it hard to believe some groups or individuals wouldn't just prefer to have a slightly less damaging weapon that they know doesn't rely on a finite resource to operate (I know I'd personally prefer a gun that kills a person in five shots that if I manage properly doesn't need anything put in it to fuction than one that kills a person in three that I have to stop and change a clip in every ten seconds or so). I find it hard to believe that The Geth and The Collectors would suddenly just adopt this technology (yes, I know it supposedly came from The Geth, but I don't recall them dropping clips in ME1, nor their Assault Rifle needing them). I find it hard to believe the quarians would make sure every gun on The Migrant Fleet has been converted to the new system when there are far more crucial things for them to focus on. I find it hard to believe Tuchanka has been wiped clean of "obsolete" weapons given how much the krogan love warring, and that they'd make sure to adopt the new system given how scarce many of the resources are. I find it hard to believe Omega has only the latest stuff, and there aren't common thieves with old weapons in the alleyways. I even find it hard to believe that Garrus would prefer to hold off a seemingly unlimited wave of enemies coming to kill him with a weapon that relies on a steady supply of thermal clips. On top of it all, I find it hard to believe Zaeed's stories that involve thermal clips from way back, and the fact that they're on Ronald Taylor's little getaway that's supposedly been isolated from the rest of the galaxy for 10 years.

So, yeah... no matter what excuse they use and story they come up with, the whole Thermal Clip thing is like a moth-eaten lace tablecloth and no amount of trying to patch it up is going to excuse the stupid mistake that thermal clips are.

[LPPrince]

Custodire wrote...

I don't mind that we lost the inventory. It was a waste of my time.

I mind that we lost the role-play aspect in favour of a binary evil/ good alignment system.

Don't get me started on having to stick solely to paragon or renegade in ME2 rather than being able to pick both.

[Jimmie_Rox]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Shotokanguy wrote...

Again...the lore handled that. Minifacturing isn't like "poof, here's you assault rifle". They can't just make them over and over, there's just enough for the crew.

How convenient... <_<

It's the same kind of lore that explains why the bullet physics work the same regardless of the environment you're in. It too is incredibly convenient.

Now I'm going to read you're mind: The lore describing thermal clips in ME2 is pretty shallow. If they explained that they only way they could improve weapon proficiency and effectiveness (i.e. more damage) were to go back in regards to technology (no more unlimited ammo, back to limited clips) then it would be a step on the right track to making more sense.

^ This. How is having to start using swapable heat sinks an improvement over me sitting with 2 frictionless material X's in my HMWA X and thus being able to pour a continued barrage of fire at a target without my gun ever overheating? (Not that I did, but the option was there). Sure, ammo conservation makes for slightly deeper gameplay but it detracts from the rpg elements. Like how does Shepard know where to put it the first time he comes across one when he wakes up? They weren't introduced 'til after he got spaced.

Hell, I still play both games, level a character through ME1 then take him over to ME2 and you know what? I always find I enjoy the ME1 part more than the ME2 part, ME2 just doesn't feel as good to play. There's too much grandstanding in the storyline, like the "don't **** with Aria" bit that gets on my wick every playthrough. My latest run through of the pair was as a Vanguard, in ME1 it's my favourite class alongside a soldier and I take it to ME2 and it's just a wee bit fail. You go from having, IMO at least, the tankiest class in game (Predator M X with 2 Shield Interface X's, maxed out Barrier with the Shock Trooper specialisation and you get like 2000hp shields) to having no tank worth speaking of. Ever.

Also, the leveling up system in mass effect never made me feel like I'd actually achieved anything by leveling up, in ME1 i used to look forward to leveling, and be all excited when I did. In Mass Effect 2 I don't, it just happens and every so often I realise I have a bunch of points that need assigning.