342 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Maybe the word RPG has different meaning for some people, than what it is for you. For me it means roleplaying game. Meaning there is no sertain defined game structure or features what has to be in roleplaying game, as long game provides good possibility to roleplay.

I'm not going to get into what an RPG is defined by, since I've been down that path too many times before. Let's just say that while I actually do prefer the narrative and roleplaying that BioWare RPGs have above all else, I also like the gameplay to be meaningful and interesting as well. I play the game for both aspects, and as far as I'm concerned ME2 failed to deliver in that department. ME1 didn't, even if it went about it in a less than ideal manner.

We can do what you ask, but can you accept suggestion what you don't like you self?

It depends. I'm willing to let certain aspects slide in favour of a method that can hopefully satisfy both sides... to a degree. Like I said earlier, the original list is designed to build upon what ME2 has given us, which in some ways isn't ideal to me but is the most logical path to take. I'm trying to encourage the return of complexity, variation, customisation and choice without it becoming complex and cumbersome. If people don't even want those things and really do want things super-simple, then they're wasting their time. If they can come up with other ways of allowing these things, then I'm all ears. But if somebody just comes in and goes "the way ME1 did it sucks, and ME2 is just better 'cause things don't get in the way" then it's not worth my consideration and there's really nothing to debate.

What you say here cause us to comment, because you use wrong words. Those bolded word shows your attitude agaist us. Also the sentense include assumption what we want. We do want cinematic TPS with RPG elements. You added there by your own "few as possible". My point is, drop the attitude and you get better comments and suggestions.

That wasn't aimed at any and everybody who disagrees with me, just those who really think ME2 did everything better and that oversimplification is a-okay. It's aimed at those who don't want to bring back depth and really are just happy with Mass Effect being "Gears of War with Dialogue" and who don't really want the genre to move forward and innovate as they claim and are actually happy with things as they are now, and perhaps even want it simpler. If you fit into this category, then anything I say will be wasted on you.

And now I'm off for a few days, so I'll see where this thread goes and then return on Tuesday or Wednesday to see if there's any progress or ideas.

Modifié par Terror_K, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:50 .

[ScooterPie88]

Terror_K wrote...

And now I'm off for a few days, so I'll see where this thread goes and then return on Tuesday or Wednesday to see if there's any progress or ideas.

Why so you can come in and text shout down anyone who disagrees with you?  What's the point?  People have given plenty of ideas.  You just refuse to listen to any of them by saying that anyone who disagrees with you does not make valid points.  You get a much more productive conversation when someone says A you say that's one way to do it but I like B or a modified A (A1).  Simply dismissing all who say something differing from your own opinion as "invalid" or "oversimplified" gets us no where.  We all understand you didn't like ME2 (God knows you say it enough) there is no reason to keep shouting "oversimplified" or "no customization" we get it already.

I really have only one question and it can be answered with a single word.

Will you buy Mass Effect 3?

If the answer is yes then Bioware did its job right in furthering the series.

If the answer is no then wtf do you care what will be in it. 

Modifié par ScooterPie88, 12 novembre 2010 - 02:21 .

[Googlesaurus]

Let's break down the good and bad of the inventory change:

Pros:
- Eliminating the need for Shepard to carry around everything in the inventory.
- Eliminating the need to manually comb through such an expansive inventory.
- Getting rid of a host of inferior weapons/armor/mods that couldn't be previously tossed away without long, boring micromanagement.

Cons:
- Restricting the verisimilitude of the collective universe by constantly repeating the same types of weapons over and over and over again. This is excusable in a game involving terrorists or the **** army, not a galaxy-spanning adventure covering multiple sentient species.
- The need of a somewhat convoluted retcon to introduce ammo (no way around it) that was even violated in-game i.e. Jacob's loyalty mission.
- Introducing a completely new and boring mining mechanic that was necessary to using upgrades. This was made worse by the lack of anything resembling an economy; excess minerals could not be converted into credits, credits could not be converted into minerals, etc.
- Eliminating any relevant notion of choice in upgrading weapons. This is what Terror refers to as "godmodding". All players can install all upgrades without a significantly greater investment in gameplay. The only choices involve which guns to bring to the battle and which powers to spend points on. None of the upgrades had any drawbacks. 

How to solve complaints from both sides, taken from the Wishlist thread:

Googlesaurus wrote...

- All items bought/picked off dead enemies/discovered are automatically stored in Shepard's (or otherwise) private locker. There will be no "levels".

- A smooth locker system that differentiates between the obvious (armor, weapons, etc.) If you pick up more than one item of the same type, the interface designates how many you possess instead of physically cataloging every single item.

- Keep the "pick up one, apply to all" motto as long as you possess the necessary hardware. Keep the fiddling of you and your squadmates to the ship.

- A very limited number of ammo upgrades (1-2) can be carried and applied to weapons with noticeable limitations that prevent them from being overpowered. These would be displayed on the Power Wheel.

- The ability to sell your items to dealers on Omega, the Citadel, Tuchanka, and many other worlds. Your inventory list would automatically pop up whenever you're trying to sell, and all sold/bought items are sent ship-----> shop and vice-versa. It can be similar to Fallout 3's system minus the need to actually carry your items.

- All items should have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The ME2 weapon inventory already took care of this, so it only needs to be applied to the other things you pick up. Provide statistics when browsing through your inventory locker as players can decide which weapons suit their individuals needs.

- Extend the ability to sell items to your minerals as well. Everything should be convertible to credits and vice versa as long as you can find an appropriate market.

Can't believe the forums actually bleeped that out. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 12 novembre 2010 - 01:50 .

[cachx]

Terror_K wrote...
That wasn't aimed at any and everybody who disagrees with me, just those who really think ME2 did everything better and that oversimplification is a-okay. It's aimed at those who don't  want to bring back depth and really are just happy with Mass Effect being "Gears of War with Dialogue" and who don't really want the genre to move forward and innovate as they claim and are actually happy with things as they are now, and perhaps even want it simpler. If you fit into this category, then anything I say will be wasted on you.

I wonder if that means me. My whole point is that the streamlining didn'tshave off any significant "depth". (Streamlining doesn't mean to dumb down. I should have some golden plaques made).

Anyways for something a little more constructive,

iakus wrote...
Is modding, be it for weapons, ammunition, or armor, an inherently bad thing?  I'm not talking about how ME 1 did it, but the general concept?
If you can honestly say "yes", then why?  To difficult to balance?  Clutters up menus too much?  No good way to
implement?  Deep-seated hatred of all things inventory?  Let's hear it.
Ifyou could answer "no" to that.  How would you introduce it to ME 3?  Purchase only?  Loot drops?  Randomly encountered?  Researched?  Removable or fixed once applied?
For the purpose of this exercise, let's pretend that ME 2 is not the be-all, end-all in inventory management.

Ok, I'll bite. Let's work together for a change. (Whoa, scary. I know). I've said that I really do want more customization.

It's a bit problematic solving this problem without using ME1 or ME2 as a framework. Modding is part of a greater system, if you change that, then the impact is going to be felt in other areas of the game (UI, combat, character progression, class balance, etc). I'll try to break it down as best as I can:

Armors.
In terms of customization alone ME2 system was great, the only problem was the very limited choice of pieces and that you could only do it for Shep. This what somewhat solved by posterior DLC.
My idea: Keep Shep's system the same, add more variety, eliminate the full suits of armor. Make squadmates to have only 2 looks: a casual/combat one, anda deep space one. but add slots to apply upgrades to them like ME1 armors had (+X to shields, +% biotic duration, etc).
These upgrades should only be applied on the Normandy, at the start of a mission, or onsafe zones. The idea here is to keep looting to a minimum and not interrupt the action. This also requires an UI that makes it easy to
swap and exchange mods between members when necessary.

Weapons/Ammo.
This is a bit trickier. Ammo powers worked well in my opinion because it brought an element of strategy to classes and squadmates by not being a "mods for everyone" situation, the fact that you can evolve the powers
in 2 different ways also adds depth, much more than ME1 had in this particular department. It also has the advantage of being easily switched on and off during combat.
My Idea:  Each weapon gets 1 upgrade slot, you can choose to augment the weapon (+damage,+ammo capacity, etc). OR enable a special ammo mod (incendiary,cryo, etc). This could be presented in 2 ways a) each weapon gets a separate slot every char gets a single slot and that affects every weapon he carries.
I think of option because even with the simplified model of "squadmates only carry two guns" is still way too
contrived to mantain each weapon separately.
In the case you chose to install an ammo power, you see it as a skill, and can turn it on and off as needed.
And, so that soldiers don't get screwed by the change, new class skill: soldiers are allowed to have 2 weapon upgrade slots.

In terms of aquisition of these mods, I prefer if they were only quest rewards, or bought in stores.

edit: fixing formatting...

Modifié par cachx, 12 novembre 2010 - 02:00 .

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...
How to solve complaints from both sides, taken from the Wishlist thread:

First there is some acceptable stuff, but some are not.

Example ability sell induvidual items is not acceptable for me. You may say why not, isn't that good thing? Reason why it's not good, is that ONLY reason to sell anything is because player has something what player doesn't need (junk items). That's not acceptable, because really good inventory system NEVER creates that situation. Because it lead the problems what can be avoid easyly with better system, like ME2 has.

No need to loot what you don't need, you only buy and loot what is usefull.
No need for major micromanagement of items, because no same or old version of items (junk).
No need restric looting, because no major carry capacity conflicts.
No need for selling items, because everyting is usefull.

My point is that ME2 improved two things huge amount compared ME1, those are weapon combat and inventory system. So, base of those system is fine, they just need expanding and some small improvements.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:08 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

First there is some acceptable stuff, but some are not.

Example ability sell induvidual items is not acceptable for me. You may say why not, isn't that good thing? Reason why it's not good, is that ONLY reason to sell anything is because player has something what player doesn't need (junk items).

Flawed logic. If you don't need the item, that doesn't make it a junk item. It falls to squad optimization. 

Lumikki wrote...

That's not acceptable, because really good inventory system NEVER creates that situation. Because it lead the problems what can be avoid easyly with better system, like ME2 has.

A good inventory system is completely separate from the player decision to acquire loot. I don't know why you've confused the two. 

Lumikki wrote...

No need to loot what you don't need, you only buy and loot what is usefull.

And what counts as "useful" will vary depending on player preference and strategy. A good closed item inventory ensures that all items have their own unique place just as a good race structure like SC2 ensures all units are useful in a respective area. 

Lumikki wrote...

No need for major micromanagement of items, because no same or old version of items (junk).

And like I've mentioned, my system will not have that problem because there will be no "versions" of anything. 

Lumikki wrote...

No need restric looting, because no major carry capacity conflicts.

...you won't be physically carrying anything. All items are directly stored in your personal locker.

Lumikki wrote...

No need for selling items, because everyting is usefull.

That ruins the entire point of a closed inventory system, which is to force choice. ME2's inventory system fails because every weapon is available to everybody as long as the person is trained in it. ME2 got away with it by reference to advanced design replication, but there is no guarantee that you will have the same resources in ME3.  

Lumikki wrote...

My point is that ME2 improved two things huge amount compared ME1, those are weapon combat and inventory system. So, base of those system is fine, they just need expanding and some small improvements.

Weapon combat is better but has created enormous flaws in its own right. It solved the inventory problems of ME1 by erasing the features that make an inventory system important in the first place. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:40 .

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

Armors.
In terms of customization alone ME2 system was great, the only problem was the very limited choice of pieces and that you could only do it for Shep. This what somewhat solved by posterior DLC.

I generally agree.  Shepard's modular armor concept was a good one not taken far enough. Not enough choices, not enough variety.  But a decent idea.

My idea: Keep Shep's system the same, add more variety, eliminate the full suits of armor. Make squadmates to have only 2 looks: a casual/combat one, anda deep space one. but add slots to apply upgrades to them like ME1 armors had (+X to shields, +% biotic duration, etc).

The way I see it, what squadmates  really need a "casual" and "combat" outfit  the combat outfit could have a regular and "sealed" look for hostile enviroments (add helmets, masks, gloves,or whatever.  No more stripper brigades, Bioware!  Please!!   I'd rather give the squaddies full modular armor like Shepard.  But that could prove too difficult to implement.  Mod slots might be a good middle ground.

These upgrades should only be applied on the Normandy, at the start of a mission, or onsafe zones. The idea here is to keep looting to a minimum and not interrupt the action. This also requires an UI that makes it easy to
swap and exchange mods between members when necessary.

I could get behind a "workbench" idea like KOTOR.  But here's a question:  would these "safe zones" be available during combat missions?   And if so, could Shepard work on any upgrades, or just ones found so far on the mission?  I ask because, useful though they were, I found the weapons lockers very immersion-breaking in ME 2 (a locker just happens to be there with the weapons you could have sworn you'd stashed on the Normandy)

Weapons/Ammo.
This is a bit trickier. Ammo powers worked well in my opinion because it brought an element of strategy to classes and squadmates by not being a "mods for everyone" situation, the fact that you can evolve the powers
in 2 different ways also adds depth, much more than ME1 had in this particular department. It also has the advantage of being easily switched on and off during combat.

While I understand why they were implemented, I can't help but think "ammo powers" were rather contrived.  I also felt the evolved powers really didn't add much variety to the game.  It was too, simplistic, I guess "Ammo for everyone or big boom for you"  

An I dea I had, which I have no idea how it would be implemented, might involve ammo mods being available to everyone, in their most basic form, but classes could learn how to use certain ammo mods in particular ways.  For example, anyone could use cryo ammo for slowing effects, but Infiltrators could learn to use cryo ammo to get better bonuses and effects.  SImilarly  Soldiers could get better uses out of inferno rounds, Engineers disruptor ammo, and so on.  Heck, maybe two classes could use the same ammo in different ways, just because they were taught different "tricks"

My Idea:  Each weapon gets 1 upgrade slot, you can choose to augment the weapon (+damage,+ammo capacity, etc). OR enable a special ammo mod (incendiary,cryo, etc). This could be presented in 2 ways a) each weapon gets a separate slot every char gets a single slot and that affects every weapon he carries.
I think of option because even with the simplified model of "squadmates only carry two guns" is still way too
contrived to mantain each weapon separately.
In the case you chose to install an ammo power, you see it as a skill, and can turn it on and off as needed.
And, so that soldiers don't get screwed by the change, new class skill: soldiers are allowed to have 2 weapon upgrade slots.

Given the choice, I think I'd rather go with option A.  Or at least allow a chracater to "carry" a backup mod.  I like the idea of having to plan for an attack, but only one or two ammo types per mission could be restrictive.  Perhaps in addition to being able to carry extra mods, Soldiers could also have a skill that swaps them out quicker/faster cooldown?
In terms of aquisition of these mods, I prefer if they were only quest rewards, or bought in stores.

See, civil talk is possible

Modifié par iakus, 12 novembre 2010 - 06:47 .

[Jebel Krong]

iakus wrote...


I could get behind a "workbench" idea like KOTOR.  But here's a question:  would these "safe zones" be available during combat missions?   And if so, could Shepard work on any upgrades, or just ones found so far on the mission?  I ask because, useful though they were, I found the weapons lockers very immersion-breaking in ME 2 (a locker just happens to be there with the weapons you could have sworn you'd stashed on the Normandy)

as opposed to simply magically carrying everything around with you in ME1?  gameplay compromises have to be made somewhere...

expanded modular armour system is a great idea (and a must), i still don't want them to change the squad-mate outfits much, though.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:46 .

[GodWood]

ScooterPie88 wrote...
Will you buy Mass Effect 3?
If the answer is yes then Bioware did its job right in furthering the series.
If the answer is no then wtf do you care what will be in it. 

Terror liked the first one but did not like the second one.
He wants the second to be more like the first but better.
Whats not to understand?

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

*snip*

You idea about Shepard job is this?



Collecting junk from everywhere so that Shepard can get enough money to buy stuff. Because that is where you inventory system leads. You try to solve this image by magic, as huge amount of junk just magicly appear in Shepards locker in Normandy. If you get any same items or versions of same items as separated items, you will have inventory system problems. It's inevitable situation, can't be avoided in traditional inventory system. There is different between tolerating problems and not even creating them in the first place.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 10:39 .

[ScooterPie88]

GodWood wrote...

ScooterPie88 wrote...
Will you buy Mass Effect 3?
If the answer is yes then Bioware did its job right in furthering the series.
If the answer is no then wtf do you care what will be in it. 

Terror liked the first one but did not like the second one.
He wants the second to be more like the first but better.
Whats not to understand?

Obviously you don't understand.  I asked Terror if he was going to buy ME3.  If he does then Bioware is doing a good enough job and his complaints obviously aren't game breaking.
If he isn't then why should he care what's in it.

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

*snip*

You idea about Shepard job is this?

::snip::

Collecting junk from everywhere so that Shepard can get enough money to buy stuff. Because that is where you inventory system leads. You try to solve this image by magic, as huge amount of junk just magicly appear in Shepards locker in Normandy. If you get any same items or versions of same items as separated items, you will have inventory system problems. It's inevitable situation, can't be avoided in traditional inventory system. There is different between tolerating problems and not even creating them in the first place.

See, this is an example of the irritating part of these debates.  It's always seems to come back to "You just want the ME 1 inventory system all over again"  It's like there is no third alternative.

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

See, this is an example of the irritating part of these debates.  It's always seems to come back to "You just want the ME 1 inventory system all over again"  It's like there is no third alternative.

There is only two option in this argument, can you sell induvidual items or not. There is no third option, like kindy sell but not really.  Can you explain what is the third alternative option.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:31 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Collecting junk from everywhere so that Shepard can get enough money to buy stuff.

Pathetic strawmanning aside, there will be no worthless items. Inventory system =/= inventory. 

Lumikki wrote...

Because that is where you inventory system leads

Proof?

Lumikki wrote...

You try to solve this image by magic, as huge amount of junk just magicly appear in Shepards locker in Normandy.

That was the entire problem of the ME1 inventory system. Why was Shepard physically carrying 20 different assault rifles when only three of them were remotely useful? Why couldn't Shepard simply throw items away if they were not useful? Even better, why was Shepard forced to acquire items after killing opponents? 

Lumikki wrote...

If you get any same items or versions of same items as separated items, you will have inventory system problems.

 

When you get the same items, you can assign them to different squadmates. If you don't want certain items, you discard them or sell them. There will be no "versions" of anything. If you have a problem of picking up too many things, that's your fault. 

Lumikki wrote...

It's inevitable situation, can't be avoided in traditional inventory system. There is different between tolerating problems and not even creating them in the first place.

Using insane troll logic, FPS shooters can remove the problems of gunplay mechanics by completely removing guns.

[Xeranx]

Terror_K wrote...

not going to happen - mainly because the skill is already tied to having influence one way or another, if you are paragon and can't exploit the paragon option, what's the point?

Because having both be epic win buttons all the time is silly, IMO. And it doesn't make sense that in every case every person you deal with would cave with both paragon and renegade attempts. It's not that you can't use it, it's just that not everybody would react positively to it. I'm not saying this should be common, but just now and then. As long as there's an alternative way to do something or the objective involved isn't absolutely crucial I don't see the harm. As it stands Paragon and Renegade options are basically two different ways of getting the exact same result in 90% of cases, with the exception of all the "Paragon lets live, Renegade kills" options. What's the point in having two variations on dealing with things if both are pretty much the same most of the time, and all that changes is the cutscene and dialogue that sets up that same result. On top of that, some of the Paragon and Renegade moments are incredibly weak and unbelievable, but because the player has to win using them they frce the outcome anyway.

Just want to say I agree with Terror here before I get through the next few pages.  I don't like that Paragon/Renegade choices are automatic "I win" choices.  I'll reference Morinth's introduction to us to make my point.  

If you picked all the things you knew about going through Nef's house the conversation was (to the best of my recollection) a bit weird.  It came across as very one-sided especially because I was told by the game to (in Nef's apartment) to just focus on the three things to get Morinth to want to leave with me.  In shows that have characters do investigations like we should have been able to do, you don't meet someone at a bar and start questioning a person unless they know they're dealing with a cop or a reporter.  If you're neither or a private investigator (as the case is in regards to that scene) then you're going to actually talk to the other person.  It wasn't until I started using all other choices that I was able to do just that.  I was talking to Morinth and then had paragon and renegade choices that both allowed me to get some roleplaying in (albeit short) and run the risk of losing Morinth or drawing her in.  

Of course that would probably bore some people, but then I like having things to say and people being able to say things back to me a la DA:O.

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Because that is where you inventory system leads

Proof?

Looted Items A, B and C.
Looted Items A+, D, F -> Cause A to be obsolite.
Looted Items B,D,G -> Cause B and D to be useless and player allready got them.
Induvidual loot will allways lead useless and obsolite items in inventory. Junk

Only way to avoid is not allow or show loot what player allready has. That's what ME2 did allready. This lead also automatic that there isn't anything to sell, because all what player has are different stuff and "usefull".

Lumikki wrote...

You try to solve this image by magic, as huge amount of junk just magicly appear in Shepards locker in Normandy.

That was the entire problem of the ME1 inventory system. Why was Shepard physically carrying 20 different assault rifles when only three of them were remotely useful? Why couldn't Shepard simply throw items away if they were not useful? Even better, why was Shepard forced to acquire items after killing opponents?

Look above. Shepard can't trough them away , because need to sell them for money. If selling isn't allowed, then you would force player to do micromanagement everytime player loot or after loot cleaning inventories from junk what has no use for players. These are totally useless actions players part and not necassary.

Lumikki wrote...

If you get any same items or versions of same items as separated items, you will have inventory system problems.

 

When you get the same items, you can assign them to different squadmates. If you don't want certain items, you discard them or sell them. There will be no "versions" of anything. If you have a problem of picking up too many things, that's your fault.

How is it my fault that game system is badly design and force me to loot useless junk items? Or force me to micro manage those items while looting. Traditional inventory system puts more players focus (time used) in items and looting. That's not really style of Mass Effect story of Shepard, is it? It's style of traditional RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 07:56 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Looted Items A, B and C.
Looted Items A+, D, F -> Cause A to be obsolite.
Looted Items B,D,G -> Cause B and D to be useless and player allready got them.
Induvidual loot will allways lead useless and obsolite items in inventory. Junk

Only way to avoid is not allow or show loot what player allready has. That's what ME2 did allready. This lead also automatic that there isn't anything to sell, because all what player has are different stuff and "usefull".

A, B, C, D, E. F, and G are all unique items with no versions. If you pick up a replica of A, you have the following options:

- Keep it
- Discard it
- Not pick it up at all

Lumikki wrote...

Look above. Shepard can't trough them away , because need to sell them for money. If selling isn't allowed, then you would force player to do micromanagement everytime player loot or after loot cleaning inventories from junk what has no use for players. These are totally useless actions players part and not necassary.

You utterly fail to realize that ME1 didn't give the option to skip over items. If you killed a Geth Colossus various items were automatically put into your inventory; if you opened a crate, you either had to pick up everything or convert certain items to omni-gel.

My system uses common sense. If you don't want to overburden your inventory, then don't pick up stuff. If you want to get rid of things without selling them, throw them away. There will be no crates/boxes/technician kits/storage lockers/wetwork kits, there will be no direct scavenging from enemies. Loot will be regulated to specific places. Certain items and upgrades will only be accessible through player choices/interactions.  

Lumikki wrote...

How is it my fault that game system is badly design and force me to loot useless junk items? Or force me to micro manage those items while looting. Traditional inventory system puts more players focus (time used) in items and looting. That's not really style of Mass Effect story of Shepard, is it? It's style of traditional RPG.

My system =/= ME1's system. My system is fairly uncomplicated, common-sensical, and possesses none of the fantasy problems you project upon it.

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 12 novembre 2010 - 08:34 .

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

iakus wrote...

See, this is an example of the irritating part of these debates.  It's always seems to come back to "You just want the ME 1 inventory system all over again"  It's like there is no third alternative.

There is only two option in this argument, can you sell induvidual items or not. There is no third option, like kindy sell but not really.  Can you explain what is the third alternative option.

Not the option to sell items or not, but the fact that it's inevitable that you will end up carrying tons of items around.  Alternatives:

1) The option to decline to pick up objects in the first place (big failing on ME 1's part)
2) Making certain items purchase or researched-only
3) Making random drops more rare
4) Removing random drops entirely

Fewer items, dropped under more controlled circumstances, could make an inventory system far more pleasant than ME 1, without totally removing the inventory system.

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

You utterly fail to realize that ME1 didn't give the option to skip over items. If you killed a Geth Colossus various items were automatically put into your inventory; if you opened a crate, you either had to pick up everything or convert certain items to omni-gel.

Maybe I haven't sayed this clear enough, sorry about it.

For me it doesn't matter if games does auto loot or player is forced to select what to loot. Both options are equal bad options. This isn' just about ME1, but every traditional inventory system what have existing in any game. They all have same problems. It's also about how does the system fit in theme and story. Mass Effects story should not be about looting weapons or armors. It's about using items and finding new technology advances. Not about looting, the focus of traditional inventory is totally wrong for cinematic impression gameplay and even for story of Shepards.

iakus wrote...

Not the option to sell items or not, but the fact that it's inevitable that you will end up carrying tons of items around.  Alternatives:

1) The option to decline to pick up objects in the first place (big failing on ME 1's part)
2) Making certain items purchase or researched-only
3) Making random drops more rare
4) Removing random drops entirely

Fewer items, dropped under more controlled circumstances, could make an inventory system far more pleasant than ME 1, without totally removing the inventory system.

1) is problem in design allready.
2) Fine, I agree.
3,4) Random drops cause often junk item system or as more rare it cause lack of variety. Not really good solution.

Remove indivudual items from loot is required, because the induvidual items in inventory is what cause all the problems. There is no way to avoid the issue. I'm not sure if I can explain it well. More induvidual items you have more variety you have, but same time more problem it creates for player. Redusing items cause lack of variety. Only way to make sure, the items are different and has enough variety is remove all the junk items, same and obsolite items from hole system. That's mostly what ME2 did. What I'm trying to say is that improving ME1 like inventory system, as removing the problems, leads automaticly ME2 like system. It's the consequence of the fix.

What you two are trying to do is make the inventory systems problems more easyly tolerant, but those are not fixing the issues, just make it less visual so that players may tolerate it better.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:00 .

[ZABL2010]

Terror_K : “…I'm going to try and come up with that I would feel would be the perfect ME3 here…”

I also wish that the third part of the game became "as perfect as possible". There are a few simple sentences.

I would hope that game developers will add (in the ME3) more new locations (planets). Add similar maps from the first game (ME1), but not so empty. Add more "beautiful space" (Hubble can help). Maximum freedom of choice among the "survivors" of persons. It's interesting to include into the next game one "new" planet - the Earth. At least as an object of the danger from the Reapers. Also desirable - to add more "epic scenes." The final mission, I imagine as a sort of "hybrid" between the final mission of the second game (ME2) and "Star Wars". It would be nice with Raсhni and Geths.

Sometimes it's better to show than to write.

My proposals, described above, and some others, I introduced myself as a small fan film:

http://www.dailymoti...-effect-1_music

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Maybe I haven't sayed this clear enough, sorry about it.

For me it doesn't matter if games does auto loot or player is forced to select what to loot. Both options are equal bad options. This isn' just about ME1, but every traditional inventory system what
have existing in any game. They all have same problems. It's also about how does the system fit in theme and story. Mass Effects story should not be about looting weapons or armors. It's about using itmes and finding new technology advances. Not about looting, the focus of traditional inventory is totally wrong for cinematic impression gameplay.

In my system, looting is entirely optional. You will not be forced to participate in it. You could conceivably play ME3 without picking up a single item and still win. Searching safes and hacking computer systems for credits will still exist. Depending on the plot, scanning items for credits will not. That was explained away as Cerberus paying you for the information; if you are not working for them in ME3, this shouldn't occur. 

You argue that an inventory system forces players to pick up junk items. This makes no sense. A good inventory system allow easy navigation and application of items that a player possesses. Whether that person overloads their inventory space is entirely their decision. It is not a fault of the inventory mechanic unless it is forced upon them like ME1. 

Mass Effect's story shouldn't be about shoehorning a player into working for a certain secret organization. It shouldn't be about a lack of squad interaction or picking up random-ass characters to prepare for a suicide mission that has no connection to the overall plot. It shouldn't be about a story where choices have no consequences. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:02 .