887 réponses à ce sujet

[brfritos]

C. Hudson don't need to reinvent the action-RPG gameplay, he needs to mix the elements of the game better.

I mean, when doing the dossiers missions I always feel them integrated with each other.
For example, many times I pick myself thinking "should I do Grunt's recruitment mission first, so I have a better sniper and take him with me in Jack's recruitment mission or should I do Jack's mission first, so Jacob could have a better shotgun and take him with me when recruting Grunt?".

The two missions seem like an extent of another, I feel them interconnected.

I don't see this in loyalty missions, they always seem dislocated from the main story and not interconnected.

[Sparda Stonerule]

tonnactus wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...


Well personally in Mass Effect 1 I played a Vanguard. With that Vanguard I used barrier, shield boost and then proceeded to blast people with my Specter Master Shotgun, occasionally  take out the pistol and perforate my foes from a distance. That didn't require much thought from me.

That couldnt be insanity difficulty. Not that it is wrong to play on easier difficulties,but the most thinking is required
at the highest difficulty.I think you could agree with me in this point.
The vanguards barrier dont protect him against a krogan that charge him/her on insanity. That means instant death
(as long as the vanguard dont have colossus light armor at least) if the vanguard didnt stop the krogan with throw or lift. Then,krogans and mercs have master immunity on insanity.This means,without warp they were nearly unkillable.
So the vanguard has to use all his skills on insanity.Barrier and shotgun were not enough.

However as a Vanguard in Mass Effect 2 I had to be careful because a misplaced charge could kill me really quickly. I was less vulnerable in ME 1 and had to think less. I was more vulnerable in ME 2 so I had to think more.

Once i learned to nether charge at places were cover isnt available in a decent time,it was not really hard.

One problem, it was on Insanity and yes I did take more damage but that was honestly all I did. When I played Insanity I had Tali and Liara with me and I never told them what to do. Liara would frequently stop charging Krogan, and by the time I played Insanity I did have Colossus X Medium armor. Even if someone got off Master Immunity I could still blast though it.

Note on every one of my guns, including my squad mates I had; Frictionless Material X Scram Rail X and Inferno Rounds X. On all of my armor and my squad mates (Yes I had Colossus X light armor for both) I used Medical Exoskeleton X and Combat Exoskeleton X. Honestly with that setup along with Barrier, and Shield boost I rarely took much damage.

I don't really think you can tell me how I played Insanity in the first game. It wasn't hard, just killing things took a long time sometimes. I'm not saying it wasn't hard I just never thought much during it. Also learning where to charge required you to think about where to charge. Just because you learned something and it becomes a reaction doesn't mean it never required thought.

[bjdbwea]

Certainly the action parts of ME 1 didn't require much thinking either. But when do shooters ever require thinking? The rare games like OFP do, and even Fallout 3 once you increase the difficulty with mods. But casual shooters like ME 2 or its role models? Hardly. Pretty much all it takes is to be quick on the trigger.

But ME 1 and other previous BioWare games had some depth elsewhere, in the writing of story and dialogue, that ME 2 lacks almost completely. You could have done something with the ideas (for example: death and resurrection), but it never goes anywhere. With the exception of Mordin's loyalty mission. If the whole game had that standard of writing, it would actually deserve all the praise.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 08 août 2010 - 08:07 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Again this is how I feel, but I believe I spent more time during the game talking than I did fighting. I felt that the characters were actual characters (I would never say deep, because deep is highly subjective). I felt the writing was great and even my dad chuckled at some of the things said. Again it comes down to a lot of subjective variables.

[tonnactus]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

One problem, it was on Insanity and yes I did take more damage but that was honestly all I did. When I played Insanity I had Tali and Liara with me and I never told them what to do. Liara would frequently stop charging Krogan, and by the time I played Insanity I did have Colossus X Medium armor. Even if someone got off Master Immunity I could still blast though it.

Note on every one of my guns, including my squad mates I had; Frictionless Material X Scram Rail X and Inferno Rounds X. On all of my armor and my squad mates (Yes I had Colossus X light armor for both) I used Medical Exoskeleton X and Combat Exoskeleton X. Honestly with that setup along with Barrier, and Shield boost I rarely took much damage.

New game plus .Starting from level one was a different thing and sometimes difficult at least to level 30-40.

Why did you even play as a vanguard when you didnt use other biotics then barrier and let liara do all the work??

[JKoopman]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

I am glad they got rid of the inventory, it was broken the way it was. If they couldnt fix it then removing it was the best way.

Therin lies the rub. If they couldn't fix it. Are you telling me that BioWare, the same BioWare that's been making RPGs with workable inventories for decades, somehow forgot how to make one when it came to ME2? That they couldn't figure out how to fix the scant problems ME1's inventory had? They couldn't add a few "sort" options? Maybe tinker with the loot tables a bit so you got less garbage and clutter?

None of the people who criticize ME2 believe that ME1 was perfect. We all recognize that it had plenty of problems that needed fixing. The reason why we criticize is because, instead of fixing those issues like we expected, BioWare simply gutted them and turned ME2 into "just another shooter". What it seems like to us is that BioWare simply got lazy.

[billywaffles]

"In Mass Effect 2 we focused on what we love about RPGs: An awesome sense of exploration, intense combat, a deep and non-linear story that'saffected by your actions, and rich customisation of your armour, weapons and appearance..."

LOL, this man played another game XD.

[ScotGaymer]

I havent argued with any of the flaws in ME2 that people have brought up.



I just understand why they got rid of the inventory in ME2 - ME1s inventory was a nightmare. Difficult to navigate, difficult and annoying to use.

I was so happy they got shot of it.



Unfortunately they replaced it with a system that while an improvement wasnt massively better IMO.



I should take this opportunity to say I dont like shooter games. And while ME2 gameplay wise has its flaws, some of them right ruddy big uns, its still a large improvement over the gameplay of ME1.



Again im not saying that they could have found other better ways to implement improvements into the game - they could have. I mean dropping the heat system for the stupid ass ammo system. I dont know how many times ive died when i started playing becase of shepard reloading or running out of ammo and switching weapons.

What was wrong with the heat system? All it needed was the cooldown times shortened - that was my only gripe with it was it heated up too fast and too way too long to "cool down".



I like ME2 - gameplay wise it was an improvement over ME1. I just think they went too far in dumbing it down and introducing "action" elements and taking out "rpg" elements of it.

Hopefully they will pull it back a little for ME3 and fix the most glaring of the problems with ME2.



I dont think its "just another shooter". Cos from what ive read of reviews and online is that the traditional shooter crowd hate Mass Effect 2. lol.

Because its not "shooter enough". Its too much like an RPG for them. Too much "pointless talking" and not enough time randomly and pointlessly murdering things.

What a silly thing to say - to accuse mass effect of being a shooter. lol.



I dont think it was a case of Bioware being lazy. I think they were trying to popularise Mass Effect; as it probably is their best selling title.

Trying to make it appeal to as many people as possible. Which I think was frankly a mistake. You cant please everyone. Best to stick to what you do best and deliver it better and better and better.

[CatatonicMan]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, you can if removing some part refines other parts. Don't look situation just as part is there or isn't, but how that part affects to hole picture.

You you can maybe refine some parts by axing others, but whatever you axed cannot then be refined.

Instead of making the inventory system actually work, they axed it. There can be no refinements to said system because it no longer exists. Instead of refining the Mako and the driving aspects, they axed them. Instead of making weapon mods more varied and interesting, they nuked them. Instead of building upon their unique overheat system, they replaced it with something standard and bland.

Maybe all this axing made the shooter aspect better, but it was at the cost of making the whole far less.

[Terror_K]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

The developers. With some input from fans of both sides of the argument. No choice is inherently right nor wrong unless it renders the game unable to function as a game. Developers take input and make decisions. The decision made was unfavorable to you but favorable to others. So why not make a real discussion about what everyone can do to make Mass Effect 3 even better as a whole instead of butting heads with people?

We are doing that by naming and collecting the things that didn't work in ME 2. If the developers could be bothered to read their own forums, they should be thankful for the amount of input they get. After all, that's how the changes from ME 1 to ME 2 came about, or didn't they?

:happy:

Very true and I am glad you brought it up. I never implied you should put up or shut up. If you extrapolated that then I do apologize. I am merely stating a lot of people who were not very happy tend to be combative, as do supporters of the game. I just think it would be even more helpful if you fought less. I do know that ME 2 changed from ME 1 due to input. I just know a lot of disappointed fans feel ME 3 won't change even though there is tons of input. So they then come out and act as if things will never change for the better and everything will stay the same. Except that there were plenty of people who wanted ME 1 to improve but felt that it would never change. I think it's best to keep your spirits up for a ME 3 that will have changes in it. Hopefully for the better of both parties of course.

I think a lot of heated and repeated debate stems from those of us who were unhappy bringing up how we thought ME1, despite being flawed, did things better, and ME2 supporters attacking those points because they believe simplicity that works is better than complexity that doesn't, and as if they're worried that BioWare will make things back like ME1 again if too many people keep saying the same thing. But then none of us are asking for that. I've seen many people on both sides agree that the answers lie somewhere between both games, at least in so far as style and vision goes. A lot of people who think ME2 did things better do at least admit that they went a bit far in their simplification in at least a few areas.

The thing is, some of us have come up with alternate solutions, ways to fix things, ways to add more depth, etc. that have actually got almost universal support from other forumites or at the very least "it's not ideal, but it would be better than what ME1/ME2 did." But there are still a lot of people out there who just don't seem to want ME3 to become deeper and are happy with ME2 the way it is, which kind of boggles the mind for me... especially when it's from people who claim to be longtime RPG and/or BioWare fans. And worst of all, BioWare seem to just be blind to the criticism and think that ME2 is their perfect game, just because official reviews universally praised it. I'm starting to think that either BioWare has changed or they only really listen to their fans when their fans' opinions match that of the reviewers. With ME1 both fans and reviewers criticised the texture pop, elevators, The Mako, the inventory and the UNC worlds and they went. With ME2 only the fans criticise the issues and they get ignored. Or worse still, acknowledged but laughed at and disregarded.

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, some of us have come up with alternate solutions, ways to fix things, ways to add more depth, etc. that have actually got almost universal support from other forumites or at the very least "it's not ideal, but it would be better than what ME1/ME2 did." But there are still a lot of people out there who just don't seem to want ME3 to become deeper and are happy with ME2 the way it is, which kind of boggles the mind for me... especially when it's from people who claim to be longtime RPG and/or BioWare fans. And worst of all, BioWare seem to just be blind to the criticism and think that ME2 is their perfect game, just because official reviews universally praised it. I'm starting to think that either BioWare has changed or they only really listen to their fans when their fans' opinions match that of the reviewers. With ME1 both fans and reviewers criticised the texture pop, elevators, The Mako, the inventory and the UNC worlds and they went. With ME2 only the fans criticise the issues and they get ignored. Or worse still, acknowledged but laughed at and disregarded.

This.

That one word just doesn't do that paragraph justice so I'll say it again.

This.

[IntrepidProdigy]

Terror_K wrote...

 think a lot of heated and repeated debate stems from those of us who were unhappy bringing up how we thought ME1, despite being flawed, did things better, and ME2 supporters attacking those points because they believe simplicity that works is better than complexity that doesn't, and as if they're worried that BioWare will make things back like ME1 again if too many people keep saying the same thing. But then none of us are asking for that. I've seen many people on both sides agree that the answers lie somewhere between both games, at least in so far as style and vision goes. A lot of people who think ME2 did things better do at least admit that they went a bit far in their simplification in at least a few areas.

The thing is, some of us have come up with alternate solutions, ways to fix things, ways to add more depth, etc. that have actually got almost universal support from other forumites or at the very least "it's not ideal, but it would be better than what ME1/ME2 did." But there are still a lot of people out there who just don't seem to want ME3 to become deeper and are happy with ME2 the way it is, which kind of boggles the mind for me... especially when it's from people who claim to be longtime RPG and/or BioWare fans. And worst of all, BioWare seem to just be blind to the criticism and think that ME2 is their perfect game, just because official reviews universally praised it. I'm starting to think that either BioWare has changed or they only really listen to their fans when their fans' opinions match that of the reviewers. With ME1 both fans and reviewers criticised the texture pop, elevators, The Mako, the inventory and the UNC worlds and they went. With ME2 only the fans criticise the issues and they get ignored. Or worse still, acknowledged but laughed at and disregarded.

Fine post Terror, couldn't agree more with this post.

[Whatever42]

Terror_K wrote...
 And worst of all, BioWare seem to just be blind to the criticism and think that ME2 is their perfect game, just because official reviews universally praised it. I'm starting to think that either BioWare has changed or they only really listen to their fans when their fans' opinions match that of the reviewers. With ME1 both fans and reviewers criticised the texture pop, elevators, The Mako, the inventory and the UNC worlds and they went. With ME2 only the fans criticise the issues and they get ignored. Or worse still, acknowledged but laughed at and disregarded.

You need to stop thinking you speak for Bioware fandom. You don't. Stop it. Seriously. You speak for yourself. And apparently you also speak for Iakus and a few others. But stop imagining that you are the voice of the people You're not.

I'm sorry you're hurt that Bioware doesn't share your vision of the ME franchise. I'm sorry every major review disagrees with you. I'm sorry most ME fans disagree with you. However, I think you really need to deal with it.

The thing is, I don't disagree with every single one of your points, if you were to bring them up in a more constructive fashion. But who really pays attention to over-the-top rants?

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 09 août 2010 - 12:48 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

tonnactus wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

One problem, it was on Insanity and yes I did take more damage but that was honestly all I did. When I played Insanity I had Tali and Liara with me and I never told them what to do. Liara would frequently stop charging Krogan, and by the time I played Insanity I did have Colossus X Medium armor. Even if someone got off Master Immunity I could still blast though it.

Note on every one of my guns, including my squad mates I had; Frictionless Material X Scram Rail X and Inferno Rounds X. On all of my armor and my squad mates (Yes I had Colossus X light armor for both) I used Medical Exoskeleton X and Combat Exoskeleton X. Honestly with that setup along with Barrier, and Shield boost I rarely took much damage.

New game plus .Starting from level one was a different thing and sometimes difficult at least to level 30-40.

Why did you even play as a vanguard when you didnt use other biotics then barrier and let liara do all the work??

Well I'm not doing myself any favors when I say that, I wasn't fully of aware of how the game could be played because I never read up on it. When I I don't do research on a game I find what works for me and what I enjoy, so that's what I did. Even when I replayed Insanity on New Game plus lately I just used Garrus and Ashley with Sniper Rifle's. I barely had to do anything. I threw out some lifts and push's. Maybe some warp if I felt the need. But those two kind of tore apart enemies.

Also I am fully aware starting from a new character is hard. I just made a custom Shepard that I liked and never wanted to make another. Which mean my only Shepard has no added talents to him. Kind of, abnormal really. However I've come to learn I'm an abnormal game player. My friends at least tell me that I do things in ways they would have never considered.

I guess I might as well say both games require thought. Just different kinds. ME 1 was more about planning ahead with the skills you pick. ME 2 was more about making quick judgement calls on the battlefield.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 And worst of all, BioWare seem to just be blind to the criticism and think that ME2 is their perfect game, just because official reviews universally praised it. I'm starting to think that either BioWare has changed or they only really listen to their fans when their fans' opinions match that of the reviewers. With ME1 both fans and reviewers criticised the texture pop, elevators, The Mako, the inventory and the UNC worlds and they went. With ME2 only the fans criticise the issues and they get ignored. Or worse still, acknowledged but laughed at and disregarded.

You need to stop thinking you speak for Bioware fandom. You don't. Stop it. Seriously. You speak for yourself. And apparently you also speak for Iakus and a few others. But stop imagining that you are the voice of the people You're not.

I'm sorry you're hurt that Bioware doesn't share your vision of the ME franchise. I'm sorry every major review disagrees with you. I'm sorry most ME fans disagree with you. However, I think you really need to deal with it.

The thing is, I don't disagree with every single one of your points, if you were to bring them up in a more constructive fashion. But who really pays attention to over-the-top rants?

I think Terror only goes over the top sometimes. This time however I think you went over the top. What you just said was basically say Terror is just wrong. That's not constructive either so just calm down. I do think she is right however. I do think Bioware mostly listens to fans when they match reviews, unless the fan outcry is large enough and coherent enough.

You know I like you but for the sake of getting along do not imply people are wrong and not being constructive. Me and Terror were just talking. That's a much better first step than most threads get. You don't need to bring hostility into a conversation when there is none between us.

[Whatever42]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 And worst of all, BioWare seem to just be blind to the criticism and think that ME2 is their perfect game, just because official reviews universally praised it. I'm starting to think that either BioWare has changed or they only really listen to their fans when their fans' opinions match that of the reviewers. With ME1 both fans and reviewers criticised the texture pop, elevators, The Mako, the inventory and the UNC worlds and they went. With ME2 only the fans criticise the issues and they get ignored. Or worse still, acknowledged but laughed at and disregarded.

You need to stop thinking you speak for Bioware fandom. You don't. Stop it. Seriously. You speak for yourself. And apparently you also speak for Iakus and a few others. But stop imagining that you are the voice of the people You're not.

I'm sorry you're hurt that Bioware doesn't share your vision of the ME franchise. I'm sorry every major review disagrees with you. I'm sorry most ME fans disagree with you. However, I think you really need to deal with it.

The thing is, I don't disagree with every single one of your points, if you were to bring them up in a more constructive fashion. But who really pays attention to over-the-top rants?

I think Terror only goes over the top sometimes. This time however I think you went over the top. What you just said was basically say Terror is just wrong. That's not constructive either so just calm down. I do think she is right however. I do think Bioware mostly listens to fans when they match reviews, unless the fan outcry is large enough and coherent enough.

You know I like you but for the sake of getting along do not imply people are wrong and not being constructive. Me and Terror were just talking. That's a much better first step than most threads get. You don't need to bring hostility into a conversation when there is none between us.

I apologise if I overreacted. 

If I were to be more precise in my language, I would say that Terror (and you) cannot support your positions that Bioware does not listen to their fans. There is far from a uniformity of opinion on these boards, except on a few issues. So listen to who, exactly?

And who is to say that these boards are representative of Bioware fandom? 

The only time its obvious that Bioware listens to their fans is when there is a loud, uniformity of opinion. Otherwise, every decision they make will disappoint some fans and excite others so some group of fans can always claim that Bioware didn't listen to them.

So, my point stands, that since Terror (or me or you) does not speak for Bioware fandom, since our opinions are simply OUR opinions, we really need to refrain from making sweeping pronouncements about what fans want.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 09 août 2010 - 01:14 .

[Il Divo]

The problem isn't even that no one is willing to engage in discussion. The problem is that one person's 'cure' is another's 'disease' so to speak. All we have to go on, as Whatever says, are these forums which do represent a small minority of Bioware's fanbase. What one fan loved in Mass Effect, another hated. What one fan loved in Mass Effect 2, another hated.



One of the few topics I've seen relative agreement (not absolute) on is that Mass Effect had a better overall story while Mass Effect 2 had more interesting characters. Even that however is debatable. We're never going to have 'agreement'.

[SithLordExarKun]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

You need to stop thinking you speak for Bioware fandom. You don't. Stop it. Seriously. You speak for yourself. And apparently you also speak for Iakus and a few others. But stop imagining that you are the voice of the people

Sad to say, he thinks he is.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

"In Mass Effect 2 we focused on what we love about RPGs: An awesome sense of exploration, intense combat, a deep and non-linear story that'saffected by your actions, and rich customisation of your armour, weapons and appearance..."



So I'm all for spinning some positive PR in the face of Mass Effect's success, but Casey, darling...

1. Exploration was weak due to small linear levels and a "chronological" main plot progression (meaning the actual story missions were set up to happen when certain values were met, ie. Recruiting a certain # of people, etc.). They were not do

[Pocketgb]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
I apologise if I overreacted. 

If I were to be more precise in my language, I would say that Terror (and you) cannot support your positions that Bioware does not listen to their fans. There is far from a uniformity of opinion on these boards, except on a few issues. So listen to who, exactly?

And who is to say that these boards are representative of Bioware fandom? 

The only time its obvious that Bioware listens to their fans is when there is a loud, uniformity of opinion. Otherwise, every decision they make will disappoint some fans and excite others so some group of fans can always claim that Bioware didn't listen to them.

So, my point stands, that since Terror (or me or you) does not speak for Bioware fandom, since our opinions are simply OUR opinions, we really need to refrain from making sweeping pronouncements about what fans want.

This is what I've been saying for awhile here now. Quoted for truth.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Fair enough. I agree one person can not speak for an entire fan base. I was not implying I knew exactly what Bioware does, but it does seem like Bioware listened to fans who sided with reviewers when they changed things for Mass Effect 2. That's fairly noticeable but it's probably not the complete truth of the matter. I'm sorry if I seemed as if I was implying I knew anything for sure, even I'm guilty of making generalized statements sometimes.

[Whatever42]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Fair enough. I agree one person can not speak for an entire fan base. I was not implying I knew exactly what Bioware does, but it does seem like Bioware listened to fans who sided with reviewers when they changed things for Mass Effect 2. That's fairly noticeable but it's probably not the complete truth of the matter. I'm sorry if I seemed as if I was implying I knew anything for sure, even I'm guilty of making generalized statements sometimes.

Oh, I know we all make judgmental statements and generalize. It's human nature. And you were never claiming to speak for fandom - you just stated your opinion that Bioware was not listening and that's fine. I disagree but people are allowed to disagree. I didn't mean to sweep you into my angry, little rant. Posting on forums, like email, can be imprecise and I often type up my messages too quickly.

Bioware undoubtedly does listen to the gaming critics. These are people who review games professionally. And most are very well aware of what makes a great rpg game - at least for them. They have large followings who respect their opinion and buy the game that they recommend. Bioware would be foolish not to listen to their feedback.

But I also believe that gaming companies listen to their fans. But that's hard to see unless they open a dialogue with you. A Blizzard developer code-named Ghostcrawler tried to do that with the Wrath expansion for World of Warcraft. He wrote pages and pages and pages of the feedback they took onboard, what worked, what didn't work and so on. Many blizzard fans still staggered around like he stabbed them through the heart when he wouldn't or couldn't give them what they wanted.  He clearly got frustrated and I doubt he'll ever try that again.

Bioware is between a rock and hard place when dealing with fandom. I think its easier when you're at the start of a project - fewer people, less expectation leads to calmer, more polite conversation. However with expansions or sequels... omg the rage is unbelievable. Developers likely never look at these boards. At best, they hire someone to review them occasionally and report back. 

However, with their new mmo, I sure hope they hire some full time community managers because if that game has any popularity whatsoever, Bioware hasn't seen anything yet. It's going to get nasty.

[Lumikki]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, you can if removing some part refines other parts. Don't look situation just as part is there or isn't, but how that part affects to hole picture.

You you can maybe refine some parts by axing others, but whatever you axed cannot then be refined.

Instead of making the inventory system actually work, they axed it. There can be no refinements to said system because it no longer exists. Instead of refining the Mako and the driving aspects, they axed them. Instead of making weapon mods more varied and interesting, they nuked them. Instead of building upon their unique overheat system, they replaced it with something standard and bland.

Maybe all this axing made the shooter aspect better, but it was at the cost of making the whole far less.

I agree with you armor and weapon modification, that is what most of us have sayed here many times. More customation is needed. ME2 customation is too limited.

As for Mako I think it was mistake take it out. Not because it was problem or so good in first place, but because it provide really needed diversity for gameplay. Driving, not just combat or dialogs. Without it players get feeling like ME2 is all about combat. How ever, so many did complain about that they did not like Mako, so it got removed. If you take Mako out from ME1 you get very combat like game, like ME2 is.

As for overhead, it was nice idea, but did not work well, because player had infinite ammos. Meaning, if you had you super weapon, you never needed to think other weapons, because one weapon did it all. So, that's why clips, to force players change weapons based situations. Refining would not work. How ever, mixing overheat and clips could have worked.

About inventory. In general way any system what has items/tools or what ever in mass amount, has same problem. if you keep increasing amount of items, you will sooner or later have control problems. There is just too many of them to manage. Inventory system like in ME1 will have this problem very soon, because it's based induvidual items. Meaning even same kind of item can be multible times in inventory.

To improve systems requires order, what also often requires removing dublicates. Like in library they don't put 100's of same books in shelf. Reason is simple more there is books in library, harder it will be find what you are looking for. That's what ME2 system did, it did remove the dublicate and create library system. Where is no more induvidual items, but research "items", so that it's only ones in players "inventory". If you start increasing items in this system it will also have problems when there is enough items.

Simple way sayed, more the junk you have, more management problems you have. Inventory with induvidual items is first system what suffers this. So, most efficient system is to have only one item of every kind and make sure every item is also induvidual enough to be different enough. Meaning, not point have items what are too similar.

I don't need 100 t-shirt, I need one t-shirt what I can customize. This makes "inventory" system alot easyer to handle.

Point is that route where ME2 did go with items, is the improved version of ME1 inventory system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 août 2010 - 06:13 .

[KainrycKarr]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...


Well personally in Mass Effect 1 I played a Vanguard. With that Vanguard I used barrier, shield boost and then proceeded to blast people with my Specter Master Shotgun, occasionally  take out the pistol and perforate my foes from a distance. That didn't require much thought from me.

That couldnt be insanity difficulty. Not that it is wrong to play on easier difficulties,but the most thinking is required
at the highest difficulty.I think you could agree with me in this point.
The vanguards barrier dont protect him against a krogan that charge him/her on insanity. That means instant death
(as long as the vanguard dont have colossus light armor at least) if the vanguard didnt stop the krogan with throw or lift. Then,krogans and mercs have master immunity on insanity.This means,without warp they were nearly unkillable.
So the vanguard has to use all his skills on insanity.Barrier and shotgun were not enough.

However as a Vanguard in Mass Effect 2 I had to be careful because a misplaced charge could kill me really quickly. I was less vulnerable in ME 1 and had to think less. I was more vulnerable in ME 2 so I had to think more.

Once i learned to nether charge at places were cover isnt available in a decent time,it was not really hard.

One problem, it was on Insanity and yes I did take more damage but that was honestly all I did. When I played Insanity I had Tali and Liara with me and I never told them what to do. Liara would frequently stop charging Krogan, and by the time I played Insanity I did have Colossus X Medium armor. Even if someone got off Master Immunity I could still blast though it.

Note on every one of my guns, including my squad mates I had; Frictionless Material X Scram Rail X and Inferno Rounds X. On all of my armor and my squad mates (Yes I had Colossus X light armor for both) I used Medical Exoskeleton X and Combat Exoskeleton X. Honestly with that setup along with Barrier, and Shield boost I rarely took much damage.

I don't really think you can tell me how I played Insanity in the first game. It wasn't hard, just killing things took a long time sometimes. I'm not saying it wasn't hard I just never thought much during it. Also learning where to charge required you to think about where to charge. Just because you learned something and it becomes a reaction doesn't mean it never required thought.

I'm sorry, but it bothers me.

Explain bolded...was it hard or not? lol

[Terror_K]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 And worst of all, BioWare seem to just be blind to the criticism and think that ME2 is their perfect game, just because official reviews universally praised it. I'm starting to think that either BioWare has changed or they only really listen to their fans when their fans' opinions match that of the reviewers. With ME1 both fans and reviewers criticised the texture pop, elevators, The Mako, the inventory and the UNC worlds and they went. With ME2 only the fans criticise the issues and they get ignored. Or worse still, acknowledged but laughed at and disregarded.

You need to stop thinking you speak for Bioware fandom. You don't. Stop it. Seriously. You speak for yourself. And apparently you also speak for Iakus and a few others. But stop imagining that you are the voice of the people You're not.

I'm sorry you're hurt that Bioware doesn't share your vision of the ME franchise. I'm sorry every major review disagrees with you. I'm sorry most ME fans disagree with you. However, I think you really need to deal with it.

The thing is, I don't disagree with every single one of your points, if you were to bring them up in a more constructive fashion. But who really pays attention to over-the-top rants?

I think Terror only goes over the top sometimes. This time however I think you went over the top. What you just said was basically say Terror is just wrong. That's not constructive either so just calm down. I do think she is right however. I do think Bioware mostly listens to fans when they match reviews, unless the fan outcry is large enough and coherent enough.

You know I like you but for the sake of getting along do not imply people are wrong and not being constructive. Me and Terror were just talking. That's a much better first step than most threads get. You don't need to bring hostility into a conversation when there is none between us.

I apologise if I overreacted. 

If I were to be more precise in my language, I would say that Terror (and you) cannot support your positions that Bioware does not listen to their fans. There is far from a uniformity of opinion on these boards, except on a few issues. So listen to who, exactly?

And who is to say that these boards are representative of Bioware fandom? 

The only time its obvious that Bioware listens to their fans is when there is a loud, uniformity of opinion. Otherwise, every decision they make will disappoint some fans and excite others so some group of fans can always claim that Bioware didn't listen to them.

So, my point stands, that since Terror (or me or you) does not speak for Bioware fandom, since our opinions are simply OUR opinions, we really need to refrain from making sweeping pronouncements about what fans want.

Actually, part of this is my fault too, coupled with a bit of a misunderstanding I think.

When I was referring to the BioWare fandom I wasn't by any means meaning all of it, because I know full well that not everybody feels the same way about things, with opinions ranging from "ME1 did everything better" to "ME2 did everything better" and everything between to varying degrees. I was only meaning those of us who were disappointed by ME2. I was generalising and thought that that was self-evident given the wording and nature of the statement, but it could have been clearer.

I don't think I'm "the voice" of the BioWare fans at all. And if everybody agreed there wouldn't even need to be "a voice" of the fans. All I do know is that shortly after it came out there were a lot of disgruntled posts and disgruntled fans, or at the very least a lot of people who thought it could have been done better and wasn't quite the perfect game the reviews made it out to be. And there still are. Again, I'm generalising when it comes to these people, which is no better or worse than generalising when talking about those who think ME2 is better or talking about reviewers. After all, if others can say "ME2 was universally acclaimed and most people loved it" then I should be able to generalise regarding those who are less than pleased with the game too.

Next time I'll try to remember to specify "the fans who are displeased" (or something similar) rather than just say "the fans" when making similar comments.