1700 réponses à ce sujet

[Xeranx]

Frotality wrote...
an awesome post

Much like Iakus' blog, this is a post for those who are willing to see why some of us are disappointed with ME2.  

Unfortunately this will be nothing for those who aren't willing to understand, want to drag Bioware through the mud using past projects, or just want to give their two cents regardless of how much sense is made.

[RiouHotaru]

Frybread76 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

brfritos wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Turin_4 wrote...

Echo!  echo...echo...

What's the difference between weapon mods and ammo powers?

Weapon mods are different from ammo powers.
You have mods that add some type of munition to your weapons, but you have others that enhance the weapons differently (rate of fire, heat dissipation, damage, stability, etc)
Ammo powers only gives you some type of ammunition for use, nothing more.

And ammo powers don't make much sense, they exist in ME2 because the talents and gameplay was strip bared.

No wonder nobody takes Cerberus and Shepard seriously, they don't know the principals of warfare, combat and fighting.
Can you imagine a tank gunner or a fighter pilot that don't know how to use shells with depleted uranium?

....You do realize that ME1 had AMMO mods.  That altered the properties of your individual shots.  These were effectively rendered into Ammo Powers.

But every class had access to ammo mods in ME1, whereas for some reason only certain classes have access to certain ammo super powers.

That's a gameplay balance issue, which of course, will conflict with the setting and realism in the context of said stting.  This happens all the time.

[Lunatic LK47]

[quote]

It just sounds to me like you don't like RPG elements; that you would prefer ME3 to just be a straight-up third-person shooter with the only RPG elements being a few upgradable skills/powers and a dialogue wheel for Paragon, Renegade and "neutral" options.[/quote]

If I hated RPGs, would I be a ****ing BioWare customer? I hated the "traditional" RPGs just for the fact that unless I spent weeks of my entire life learning how to play the damn game, I'm more or less screwed over. KOTOR 1 was actually my first WRPG while I've been stuck on the ****fest games that are JRPGs just because I did not know much about the RPG market and did not have the glory that was the "intranetz" or know about Gamefaqs till 2002. Hell, I never knew about Baldur's Gate until 2005 just because I'm not "teh h@rdC0R3 PC GAMA!"

[quote]Myself, I'd like an inventory with upgrades for armors and weapons.  I'd also like to be able to get armors for squad mates so we don't have female characters running around in high heels and skin suits.  But that's just me.  I'd also like to be able to aquire a much wider range of weapons for each character.[/quote]

I wouldn't have a problem with inventory if it wasn't too ****ing clunky. KOTOR 1 was miles better in this department. Have a duplicate item? It ****ing stacks instead of you having to scroll through hundreds of items just to fish out the weapon/armor/grenade mod you want.

[quote]And just because you think that "half the ammo mods are freaking useless" in ME1 doesn't mean they would have to be useless in ME3.  Just like the inventory, Bioware could improve the mods for weapons and armors to be more effective.[/quote]

What the hell could they improve if they only brought in the ME1 items? I only found myself using three ammo mods for every single squadmate and every single character I created. Sledgehammer IX or X, Inferno IX or X, or Polonium VII. The others are already collecting dust in a vendor's basement.

[quote]Whitering wrote...

Thanks for changing the inventory system but the
armor offerings were underwhelming. I stayed in the same armor all game
through every replay because we couldn't disappear the damn helmets from
the other armors...[/quote]

Now that you mention it, I love the fact that the N7 is modular, but I agree with the problems that the current armor system has. Almost none of the buffs really made much of a difference, despite the percentage damage. Who in their right mind would want to buy a "5% boost?" I endup more or less just sticking with the default N7 armor just because of the aesthetic appeal.

[quote]P3G4SU5
Energized Plating X reduces damage taken by 23%, I believe you were
thinking of Shield Interface X which increases shields by 160. You seem
to be judging the usefulness of mods simply by which is the best, not on
what parts you have available at a given time in your play through.
Sure you might have used Shield Interface X if you didn't have Medical
Exoskeleton X, Kinetic Exoskeleton X or a Combat Exoskeleton. Having the
player become more powerful is a basic part of any game. One aspect of
this is in ME were the modifications you find as you progressed and
gained access to increasingly more powerful parts. The point was not to
have over powerful mods available from the beginning, hence you may well
choose to use alternative parts which serve you better until you
acquire the most advanced components. You're also overlooking the fact
that people play with different play styles e.g. people may actually
prefer increased shields so that they don't lose shields in the first
place and therefore not need to regenerate any health at all using Medical Interface X.[/quote]

I'm not denying what you're saying, but I never found myself using Shield Interface/Energized Plating *AT ALL*, even long before I got the other mods in question (Always going by "Energized Weave/Kinetic Buffer/Exoskeleton" first chance I got.). I go by whatever has more beneficial features. I would not even use items that would say "This mod can boost you up in attribute A, but screws you over in B, C, and D." I would only go with whatever has more plus symbols than minus symbols. The only exception to the rule I have is Scram Rail for the rifles, just because the particular upgrade make more sense for those two weapons, and not the shotguns and pistols. For the assault rifle front, I already have Frictionless Materials X negating the negative aspects of Scram Rail for the Assault Rifles. As for the Sniper Rifles, at least it will give me more damage, not to mention they were meant for "two shots, two kills."

Regarding the skill-building: On the other hand, we're already playing as an elite soldier who should
have been proficient with *weapons training from the get-go.*
If Shepard were just a lowly grunt who got out of military training, I'd be more accepting of that. Considering how Mass Effect was designed primarily around gunfights,
Adepts got the shortest end of the stick in ME1 since you already had to
waste 8 skill points in Armor just to get access to pistols (points
which were better spent on any of the biotic powers, charm, or
intimidate, not to mention you were automatically screwed over if the
enemies spammed Damping and Sabotage on you) Certain skills such as
Decryption/Electronics/Biotic powers: I can
see the reason behind leveling up those skills, but weapon skills were
more or less a waste of skill points that could have been spent
elsewhere.

[quote]All
of the ammo types in ME had their uses, you just had to experiment a
little to discover what the optimum mod configuration was for a  given
weapon.[/quote]

I did experiment in my first few playthroughs, but even then I was selective with what ammo I was going to use. First run was purely Shredder and Tungsten rounds, but the inventory became too much of a pain in the ass for me to bother in subsequent playthroughs. I ended up just sticking with Polonium Rounds for my other playthroughs until I found out that the debuffs for Inferno Rounds only affect the targets and not the user (I blame this confusion on ****ty explanation in the item description). Sledgehammer ends up being the lesser of three evils in between High Explosive Rounds and Snowblind Rounds just because of the toxin damage and supposed stopping power, which is meant for Assault Rifles than anything else.

[quote]The
inventory system from ME needed to be streamlined, not gutted from the
game. The research/salvage system in ME2 is alright, but it is no
susbstitute for the ablility in ME to customize weapons. The research in
ME2 consists of upgrades which simply improve weapon/biotic/tech
abilities, giving increased damage, thermal clip capacity (another
dubious concept once you think about it) etc.. There are no options to
actually customize the weapons
to personalise how you want to apply them in combat. Gone are the many
ammo types (along with the ability for all classes to use them) and 
cooling, damage, recoil and accuracy modifiers. All of these options
enabled players to play in their own unique style, but they all became
casualties of the scrapped inventory system.[/quote]



[quote]The main complaint
with the ME inventory was the time drain whilst sorting through
inventory items. Instead of abandoning the concept entirely, Bioware
could have done a number of things to massively improve the player
experience of the inventory system. This includes:
Reducing the number of items that could be held in the inventory.[/quote]
You would still run into the same problem regardless. You'd be more or less encountering this 5X faster than earlier depending on how many items you are allowed to carry, and this is coming from a "pack-rat" player like myself.

[quote]Allowing
only one gun of each type to be carried (if a player picks up another
weapon of the same type, they are switched. This means the player is no
longer the walking arms dealer carrying entire ranges of armaments from
different manufacturers).[/quote]
Not sure how well this is going to work. All of the guns more or less function exactly the same as each other. For example, I only found myself using either Stinger/Raikou pistols and Tsunami/Raptor/Thunder assault rifles long before I got Spectre weapons while the others are treated like the red-head bastard step-child in the vendor or as omni-gel.


[quote] Reducing
the number of tiers for items. Reducing the I-X tiers to simply I-V
would have massively reduced the number of items that could be
accumulated. Also it would be much easier for the player to quickly
assess the items they have and identify unwanted, inferior items. In
addition, this would have given Bioware more time to focus more on the
model design and texture work of the smaller range of armors and
weapons, and enabled them to make them more distinctive than the same
reused models and textures seen in ME.[/quote]
I'd agree in this department.


[quote]Reducing/removing the ability to salvage the inventories of defeated enemies.[/quote]
I'd agree, but the question is how much reduction we're going to get. The last thing we need is MMO-caliber farming just to get whatever lootable item we want (i.e. "Low drop rate unless you spend five hours in the same area doing the save/reload glitch if "random loot" is on.)

[quote]Restricting armor acquisition to purchases in shops and (perhaps) rare
pickups in crates. It made no sense to kill an enemy by bypassing his
shields and piercing his armor with scores of holes from your weapon of
choice and then picking it up and wearing it yourself moments
afterwards. [/quote]
I'm a bit torn on this one. While I see the logic behind it, the problem is the armor loot is extremely randomized up to the point that looting might be the only option unless we spend more than five hours doing the "save/load" trick at each vendor, and even that gets tedious (I end up more or less getting the default armors for the aliens, save for Tali, who automatically gets the Collosus X armor, the Armax Predator and Medium Colossus armor for my main squadmates)

[quote]Introducing a storage container of some description, where items of interest could be stored until desired in the future.[/quote]
KOTOR 1 did this right. How the hell this was absent in ME1 is beyond me.

[quote]A "Sell all unequipped items" button to quickly and easily dispose of excess unwanted items when speaking to vendors.[/quote]
A nice compromise. Should have been in ME1 to begin with.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 08 octobre 2010 - 06:18 .

[brfritos]

smudboy wrote...

Turin_4 wrote...

Can you imagine a tank gunner or a fighter pilot that don't know how to use shells with depleted uranium?

Can you imagine someone who doesn't know that perhaps a tank gunner or a fighter pilot might not, say, have the skills needed to manufacture, install, and maintain a weapon that can fire and reload depleted uranium ammunition? Just as a for-example. You are aware that the people who do that work aren't actually the gunners, right? Making bringing that up...well, pretty strange.

....

So we can we get an answer on what makes the two different yet?

You pretty much answered the question of why ammo powers don't make sense.
So Shepard now is a ammunitions factory? Tankers and pilots don't maufactered their bullets, they simple install the available equipement in their tools to use, just like you did in ME1.

We are all bashing heads and that's not what I'm trying to say or want.

ME2 is streamlined? Yes, it is. This is a bad thing? Sometimes not.
Take Overload and Dumping, they were combined in a single power in ME2.
In rank 2 it acts like the good old overload - destroy shields - and in rank 3 it acts like both togheter, destroy shields and overheat enemy weapons.

But ME2 could've being a more richer game than it is.
The inventory in the PC version was actually pretty good, only lacking some functions, like grouping equal itens, sorting them by function, the lack of a "reduce all to omni-gel" so you don't have to do it one by one, etc.
Intead they simply strip the game from it.
Looting was a big problem is the first game and in DA:O, why not refine it, instead of errasing it?

Now in ME3 we will have it back? But it was already present in the first game, why the need to redo the same thing again?

Sometimes I have the impression that Mass Effect is a lab rat and the learning is applied in Dragon Age. LOL

[Cryo84]

 I hate the fact that I'm forced to be 100% paragon or renegade to get the best possible outcome.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Cryo84 wrote...

 I hate the fact that I'm forced to be 100% paragon or renegade to get the best possible outcome.

If you played ME1, you wouldn't have that problem.

[Crunchyinmilk]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Cryo84 wrote...
 I hate the fact that I'm forced to be 100% paragon or renegade to get the best possible outcome.

If you played ME1, you wouldn't have that problem.

Yes you would/do.  ME1 import bonus is minimal, like ~190 points.  You're still forced to play along with the paragon/renegade system that insists you always behave like an a-hole, just to make a-hole decisions later in the game.  

I would love the paragon/renegade system to step completely away from gameplay mechanics and become purely about role playing.

The ME2 system doesn't effect the story in any meaningful way, other than to lock out options unless you play a specifically one sided character, instead of an intelligent or intuitive one.  

It rewards loyal/blind archetype Shepards by making them super powerful pied pipers who never fail so long as they keep their archetype tank fully stocked. 

This doesn't encourage reactive play.  Why pay attention to anything an NPC says or does if you know that always blindly clicking the red or blue dialog tree option = win ?

Modifié par Crunchyinmilk, 08 octobre 2010 - 10:18 .

[Turin_4]

smudboy and Turin: If you guys would like to have a personal discussion between the two of you, you're welcome to take it to PM.

I've answered his question repeatedly, Pacifien, to the point of having quoted myself doing it, in fact.

------------

You pretty much answered the question of why ammo powers don't make sense.
So Shepard now is a ammunitions factory? Tankers and pilots don't maufactered their bullets, they simple install the available equipement in their tools to use, just like you did in ME1.

No, they don't. Or at least not the pilot of plane that fires depleted uranium shells-I can't say for sure about tanks, but I don't think that the gunners are the ones that do the maintenance, or at least not all of the maintenance, on their own tanks.

Shepard isn't an ammunition factory, no, but if she's a Soldier especially or some other weapons specialist, it makes perfect sense that she will have a lot of weapons expertise in the modification of ammunition and the upkeep and minifacturing and modification of weapons. Even ordinary soldiers know how to strip down their weapons, and without a whole lot of skill ordinary people can strip down weapons and modify them. Is it really difficult to believe, with a host of technology at her back, Shepard could do the same? Of course not.

---

One thing I didn't like about ME2, minor quibble, was the scarring for Renegade and the facial purity for Paragon. I felt it should've been that if you deviate from your background, then you get scarring. That would've been cool, and more plausible.

--------

ETA: You're right though, Pacifien.  I'll drop it here entirely.  Sorry.

Modifié par Turin_4, 08 octobre 2010 - 01:54 .

[Terror_K]

The whole scarring thing is a stupid concept from the start. This isn't freakin Fable. The idea that morality determines if you look normal or become The Terminator is just completely farcical. Then again, a lot of ME2 is like this.

Ammo types being powers instead of mods is stupid too. Just because I'm not of a particular class I suddenly can't shoot a particular type of round, even though I could two years ago before I got spaced? Okay... whatever...

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 octobre 2010 - 12:40 .

[brfritos]

Turin_4 wrote...

brfritos wrote...

You pretty much answered the question of why ammo powers don't make sense.
So Shepard now is a ammunitions factory? Tankers and pilots don't maufactered their bullets, they simple install the available equipement in their tools to use, just like you did in ME1.

No, they don't. Or at least not the pilot of plane that fires depleted uranium shells-I can't say for sure about tanks, but I don't think that the gunners are the ones that do the maintenance, or at least not all of the maintenance, on their own tanks.

Shepard isn't an ammunition factory, no, but if she's a Soldier especially or some other weapons specialist, it makes perfect sense that she will have a lot of weapons expertise in the modification of ammunition and the upkeep and minifacturing and modification of weapons. Even ordinary soldiers know how to strip down their weapons, and without a whole lot of skill ordinary people can strip down weapons and modify them. Is it really difficult to believe, with a host of technology at her back, Shepard could do the same? Of course not.

But in ME1 ALL classES have weapons training, all of them, the difference was only what type of weapon you could use.

What sense does it make only three classes in ME2 being capable of using special ammunition?

One thing I didn't like about ME2, minor quibble, was the scarring for Renegade and the facial purity for Paragon. I felt it should've been that if you deviate from your background, then you get scarring. That would've been cool, and more plausible.

I didn't liked the scarring since the first time I saw, usually I always use the med bay upgrade.
This is Mass Effect, not Star Wars. 

[Turin_4]

The whole scarring thing is a stupid concept from the start. This isn't freakin Fable. The idea that morality determines if you look normal or become The Terminator is just completely farcical. Then again, a lot of ME2 is like this.

Why is it farcical? The concept, I mean. Behaving in ways that are radically out of step with one's pyschological well-being can have real physiology. Bear in mind I'm just talking about the concept, not the execution.

As for ammo powers...again. Gameplay balance. Why is it stupid? It's a little tweak, these things happen between games sometimes. Why do people have a problem with that? I don't understand. Is there some law written somewhere that games must stay the same? It's a little gameplay convention, that's all. We're perfectly happy as gamers with all sorts of other totally ridiculous gameplay conventions that we've all come to accept because we've had them for ages, but this one is stupid...why?

But in ME1 ALL classES have weapons training, all of them, the difference was only what type of weapon you could use.

What sense does it make only three classes in ME2 being capable of using special ammunition?

What's the sense of having 'special' ammunition if everyone can use it, is another way of phrasing the question.  It takes some of the shine off the soldier, for one thing, and the other combat classes.  Not that, frankly, they need much shine because honestly combat isn't difficult in any ME game.

Modifié par Turin_4, 08 octobre 2010 - 01:58 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Some places not even having maps needs to go too: all locales should have a map the player can view if they choose to.

yeah having a map for someplace you've never been to sounds like a wonderful idea <_<. seriously even if you could rationalise it away in-game as EDI scanning a location for you, you'd never have exact details for a UNC/whatever. Major locations, yeah, and that's what we got in ME2, other places - not so much.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 08 octobre 2010 - 02:12 .

[Turin_4]

I see no reason why you shouldn't have a map for places you have been, though, even if it's a place you've just been.

[brfritos]

Turin_4 wrote...

The whole scarring thing is a stupid concept from the start. This isn't freakin Fable. The idea that morality determines if you look normal or become The Terminator is just completely farcical. Then again, a lot of ME2 is like this.

Why is it farcical? The concept, I mean. Behaving in ways that are radically out of step with one's pyschological well-being can have real physiology. Bear in mind I'm just talking about the concept, not the execution.

Well, I don't remember Jeffrey Dahmer, Robert Pickton, Pekka-Eric Auvinen, Mary Ann Cotton and many others being disfigurated or suffering facial scarring because they are pyschologically insane.

In fact, they are pretty much "your old good neighbor".

As for ammo powers...again. Gameplay balance. Why is it stupid? It's a little tweak, these things happen between games sometimes. Why do people have a problem with that? I don't understand. Is there some law written somewhere that games must stay the same? It's a little gameplay convention, that's all. We're perfectly happy as gamers with all sorts of other totally ridiculous gameplay conventions that we've all come to accept because we've had them for ages, but this one is stupid...why?

But the problem is not "gameplay balance", it's because it doesn't make a f**** sense.

[Turin_4]

Careful choice of words there, brfritos. They were insane, and they behaved in insane ways. I was suggesting that if you acted Paragon in ME1, but act Renegade in ME2-scarring. I think that would be pretty cool, a sign that the resurrection went...wrong somehow. Just a nifty little thing. Not really necessary or anything.

But the problem is not "gameplay balance", it's because it doesn't make a f**** sense.

Well, that's an argument that's been hashed out ad naseum, and I'm not really interested in going into it again. Suffice to say, there are plenty of very plausible explanations that make sense and take very little imagination indeed, fitting well within gameplay conventions we already all accept as a matter of course. It seems to me, though, that people are just more upset that they can't all use magic ammo. That's about as nuanced a criticism as 'doesn't make ****in' sense'.

[Frybread76]

Terror_K wrote...

The whole scarring thing is a stupid concept from the start. This isn't freakin Fable. The idea that morality determines if you look normal or become The Terminator is just completely farcical. Then again, a lot of ME2 is like this.

Ammo types being powers instead of mods is stupid too. Just because I'm not of a particular class I suddenly can't shoot a particular type of round, even though I could two years ago before I got spaced? Okay... whatever...

Maybe in ME3 Shepard will turn pale and his biotics will be red if he goes "evil" (Renegade). heh

[brfritos]

Turin_4 wrote...

Careful choice of words there, brfritos. They were insane, and they behaved in insane ways. I was suggesting that if you acted Paragon in ME1, but act Renegade in ME2-scarring. I think that would be pretty cool, a sign that the resurrection went...wrong somehow. Just a nifty little thing. Not really necessary or anything.

But the problem is not "gameplay balance", it's because it doesn't make a f**** sense.

Well, that's an argument that's been hashed out ad naseum, and I'm not really interested in going into it again. Suffice to say, there are plenty of very plausible explanations that make sense and take very little imagination indeed, fitting well within gameplay conventions we already all accept as a matter of course. It seems to me, though, that people are just more upset that they can't all use magic ammo. That's about as nuanced a criticism as 'doesn't make ****in' sense'.

Oh no, I mainly act Paragade or Renegon in both ME1 and ME2.
Pure renegade or paragon are boring, you only have one option and path to follow.

The problem is not being able not to use magic ammo, but coherence.
In ME1 Bioware created a lore and tried to explain in a logic manner ALL that happens in the game.
This adds a richer game enviroment and make the world more believable, since you have explanation for everything that happens.
I know that the "pseudo-science" of the game contradicts real science, but explaining everything creates a more immersive experience.

You can see this with heathsinks: they don't pretty make much sense either, but they tried to explain why is used and what lead to this change in weapons.
Of course the reason is because of the gameplay adjustments, but creating this lore adds more immersion and make the change more believable.

I know that I can't implant uranium (or eezo) in my brain and gain biotic (spells) powers or use a high-tech gizmo (omni-tool = more spells) and put people on fire.
I wish this was true, so I could stole Soverign indocrination to convince more people to have sex with me. LOL

But there isn't a single explanation in the game why a soldier can use ammo powers and a engineer can't.
Why they don't created a explanation for this is beyond me.

Modifié par brfritos, 08 octobre 2010 - 06:25 .

[Turin_4]

But there isn't a single explanation in the game why a soldier can use ammo powers and a engineer can't.

Why they don't created a explanation for this is beyond me.

I'm not sure if there is one or not. I don't think there is, though, and I agree, that's an oversight, and a pretty silly one. I just don't think it's a remotely big deal is all. I honestly just don't care, because I've seen what happens to stories when they try to explain every last little bit of detail about the in-game universe: you get poorly constructed table-top D&D games is what happens.

[Cryo84]

Crunchyinmilk wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Cryo84 wrote...
 I hate the fact that I'm forced to be 100% paragon or renegade to get the best possible outcome.

If you played ME1, you wouldn't have that problem.

Yes you would/do.  ME1 import bonus is minimal, like ~190 points.  You're still forced to play along with the paragon/renegade system that insists you always behave like an a-hole, just to make a-hole decisions later in the game.  

I would love the paragon/renegade system to step completely away from gameplay mechanics and become purely about role playing.

The ME2 system doesn't effect the story in any meaningful way, other than to lock out options unless you play a specifically one sided character, instead of an intelligent or intuitive one.  

It rewards loyal/blind archetype Shepards by making them super powerful pied pipers who never fail so long as they keep their archetype tank fully stocked. 

This doesn't encourage reactive play.  Why pay attention to anything an NPC says or does if you know that always blindly clicking the red or blue dialog tree option = win ?

This! A thousand times this!

[Turin_4]

I don't know that the ME2 system always makes you be an a-hole if you're a renegade. I've never played pure Paragon or pure Renegade, though, so I couldn't say. Some choice I got Renegade points for didn't seem very ****-ish to me at all, honestly.

[Lumikki]

Cryo84 wrote...

 I hate the fact that I'm forced to be 100% paragon or renegade to get the best possible outcome.

You are not forced to play paragon or renegade. You can make any choise in dialog you want, what can lead any kind result between extereme paragon and renegade result.

What you want as player is 100% positive results from dialogs, so that your choises in past dialogs has no affect to currect choises. Because that's only difference between going extreme ways or been more neutral. You can't handle as player negative outcomes, as not having that 100% postive result in dialogs. That's you real problem.

ME1 persuade allowed player to play out of role and still get 100% postive result from npcs. Meaning you can spit npcs face and kill them and still get npcs to smile to you and obey you because you sayed stuff so nicely (persuade).  ME1 system is like this, you meet sister and brother, you kill the sister and then persuade brother to do you favors without that brother to fear you. So, it doesn't really matter what actions you do inside the game, you only have you put points to skill.

In ME2 if you don't have sertain "fame" you can not allways "persuade" or "intimidate" npcs to do what you want, because you are just famous wimp who's action are not respected or feared, just known. ME2 system is like reputation as your past choises cause you to have sertain reputation. So, ME2 system is like this, You meet sister and brother, if you do postive favor to sister, you have good change to to get positive favor from brother too. If you do negative stuff to sister then persuade doesn't work agaist brother, you need to intimidate brother. If you keep doing mix match actions alot, you ability persuade and intimidate becomes less good as you reputation is so unknown or contradictory. Meaning if you meet some npcs what doens't easyly change they mind, without good or bad reputation you can't allways change they minds. Meaning you don't allways get that 100% postive result.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:27 .

[Pocketgb]

tonnactus wrote...
Actually,soldier and adepts could have electronics in Mass Effect...

Then let's take it a step further: Why not on the first playthrough?

If I'm classified as a "soldier", what's preventing me from taking some tips from an electrician?
What if I want to open up some doors and take a few classes on decryption?

Why can't I further specify my background? Why can't I create my own class, essentially?

The reasons for all this is balance and to give an identity to a class, just like in ME1.

tonnactus wrote...
The soldier class actually have enough gameplay advantages. Ammo powers dont have to be one of them.

Alright I'm confused now: Is the problem that everyone should be able to have access to the ammo powers, or that the soldier shouldn't?

If he shouldn't, why not? And what would you give the class instead?

[Frybread76]

Pocketgb wrote...

tonnactus wrote...
Actually,soldier and adepts could have electronics in Mass Effect...

Then let's take it a step further: Why not on the first playthrough?

If I'm classified as a "soldier", what's preventing me from taking some tips from an electrician?
What if I want to open up some doors and take a few classes on decryption?

Why can't I further specify my background? Why can't I create my own class, essentially?

The reasons for all this is balance and to give an identity to a class, just like in ME1.

tonnactus wrote...
The soldier class actually have enough gameplay advantages. Ammo powers dont have to be one of them.

Alright I'm confused now: Is the problem that everyone should be able to have access to the ammo powers, or that the soldier shouldn't?

If he shouldn't, why not? And what would you give the class instead?

I think this issue is why should any class have access to an ammo power but a another class not have access.  If an ammo power involves a soldier, for instance, pushing a button on a gun to create an effect, then why can't an adept push that same button and create the same effect?  Do classes have different guns, or are some classes not trained to push a button to create fire ammo or disruptor ammo?

[Lumikki]

Frybread76 wrote...

I think this issue is why should any class have access to an ammo power but a another class not have access.  If an ammo power involves a soldier, for instance, pushing a button on a gun to create an effect, then why can't an adept push that same button and create the same effect?  Do classes have different guns, or are some classes not trained to push a button to create fire ammo or disruptor ammo?

I agree, all classes in ME series are military classes and all of them use ammos in they weapons. So, there isn't reason to deny some class not to have special ammos. Because ammos are just addional stuff to weapons. It's different to limit weapons as training, than something what that weapon can use.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 octobre 2010 - 09:44 .

[TRISTAN WERBE]

the problem from the begging was u could not selcet what species u wanted and not everything is customizoble