Is something optional if player doesn't have to do it, but it's part of content and give advances?Googlesaurus wrote...
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.
My Idea of the Perfect ME3
Débuté par
Terror_K
, nov. 02 2010 10:42
#251
Posté 12 novembre 2010 - 09:09
Lumikki
-
- Members
- 4 239 messages
Retour en haut
#252
Posté 12 novembre 2010 - 09:45
ZABL2010
-
- Members
- 61 messages
I want to add to my posts (see above) another suggestion. In both parts of the game to me "not enough" - "alien creatures". I understand some technical problems of the “Bioware” company. However, there are beautiful finished images of such creatures. Maybe they come in handy for the developers of the game ME3. They are made by scientists. Again - it's better to show than to write. I used these images in my slide - film. Though not on the game's plot (ME). I used this images in one of my fantasy - story. If interested, take a look:
http://www.dailymoti...sky-s-mus_music
http://www.dailymoti...sky-s-mus_music
#253
Posté 12 novembre 2010 - 09:49
Googlesaurus
-
- Members
- 595 messages
Lumikki wrote...
Is something optional if player doesn't have to do it, but it's part of content and give advances?
...so all content in a game is "necessary" because it is content? I guess Quasar is now a necessary part of ME1.
Modifié par Googlesaurus, 12 novembre 2010 - 09:53 .
#254
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 01:50
GodWood
-
- Members
- 7 954 messages
Lets say he won't buy it if its just like ME2, based on your post you're saying he should just STFU and GTFO which is stupid, he has the right to voice his complaints and hope they change ME3 for the better so he can actually enjoy it.ScooterPie88 wrote...
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.GodWood wrote...
Terror liked the first one but did not like the second one.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.
He wants the second to be more like the first but better.
Whats not to understand?
If he isn't then why should he care what's in it.
#255
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 02:46
Spinotech
-
- Members
- 436 messages
Regarding the weapon system in ME1 and ME2, I would like to see a return of weapon mods, but I think ammo powers should be retained. First, I support ammo powers because I believe they make the classes more specialized and because I do not want to change ammo types like in ME1. For weapon mods I think there should be at least two main weapon modifications and one special modification slot available for weapons. However, I would not want to have tons of modifications in inventory, so I would want to see a weapon modifications selection screen just prior to a mission. I also support several upgrade levels that could increase the benefits and decrease the downsides of each modification. Some weapon mod ideas I have include:
Special Modifications:
Quarian Cycle Accelerator: Increases slug speed and adds a rotational element allowing the slugs to shred shields and barrier, Assault Rifles and SMGs only, ++shield/barrier damage (+10 to 30%), - - weapon damage (-30 to -10%)
Geth Plasma Generator: Coats the slugs in plasma like the Geth Plasma shotgun, ++ Weapon damage, - heat sinks
Asari Anti-Barrier Module: A minature warp module for the mass accelerator is added that dramatically lowers the barrier and armor value of an enemy, all weapons, + barrier/armor drain (+5 to +15%), - ???
Salarian Anti-Tech Module: A miniature overload module for the mass accelerator is added that overheats weapons and dramatically lowers the shield value of an enemy, all weapons, + shield drain (+5 to 15%), - ???
Turian Penetration Block: A special block is added that results in slugs with added penetration, all weapons, + penetration (-75 to -50% damage reduction per each defense layer), - weapon damage (-25 to 10% damage reduction)
Special Modifications:
Quarian Cycle Accelerator: Increases slug speed and adds a rotational element allowing the slugs to shred shields and barrier, Assault Rifles and SMGs only, ++shield/barrier damage (+10 to 30%), - - weapon damage (-30 to -10%)
Geth Plasma Generator: Coats the slugs in plasma like the Geth Plasma shotgun, ++ Weapon damage, - heat sinks
Asari Anti-Barrier Module: A minature warp module for the mass accelerator is added that dramatically lowers the barrier and armor value of an enemy, all weapons, + barrier/armor drain (+5 to +15%), - ???
Salarian Anti-Tech Module: A miniature overload module for the mass accelerator is added that overheats weapons and dramatically lowers the shield value of an enemy, all weapons, + shield drain (+5 to 15%), - ???
Turian Penetration Block: A special block is added that results in slugs with added penetration, all weapons, + penetration (-75 to -50% damage reduction per each defense layer), - weapon damage (-25 to 10% damage reduction)
#256
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 02:57
Epic777
-
- Members
- 1 268 messages
^^ Personally I would rather have ammo separate like but I would want a way to change ammo on the fly.
#257
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 05:33
Mr. Man
-
- Members
- 307 messages
For me the perfect Mass Effect 3 would have to be an epic 80 hour adventure that was different based on your previous decisions.
#258
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 11:37
Lumikki
-
- Members
- 4 239 messages
As this is more suggestion thread, lets try to make one. I think Terror_K already say ed most of stuff in original post.
Impression.
One of most important thing after game-play is the impression what players get from the game world. If game world feels like it's alive and player doing actions like in cinematic movie, it's gonna feel better. This how ever, also means all game features needs to be consider from impression point too, not just practical point. Meaning game-play features should not break the impression badly, just because player needs to do something for his/her characters. Impression is build by creating small detail situation what feels and fit the situation where player is.
Also it can be consider as how player access to something, like is it just cold technical screen where player does something or is the feature masked to look something what makes more sense in game world perspective. Impression can be improved with small details like two npcs talking about engine problem on Normandy. It can be simulating air docking between Normandy and space station. It can be personal armor locker to access to armor modification. It's all about attitude of how stuff are made. One bad point of impression is that it doesn't often make game-play easier or faster. How ever, impression is most the time more important than doing something fast and easy. It's about finding compromise when impression on feature is too clumsy and when feature is easy to use.
Point is don't just think how something can be technically made function well for player, but what impression it leaves for player too. Did it improve players feeling game to be more alive?
Role-playing and meta-gaming
When people play games like Mass Effect they take a role of Shepard. Meaning they are role-playing. Ability role-play requires that player can create character they like to play and make choices inside the game what fits they characters role. So, character customisation is important and it's dialogs choices as having enough different ones. Now people in real life how ever, always look the perfect solutions, because games often rewards players doing certain stuff. Now this can lead meta-gaming, what means player doesn't anymore play the role, but plays role what is defined game developers with game design. This happens because game developers shows players how to get reward. If player see two opinion what one rewards and other doesn't, what player choose? Play the role and take what fits player character role or just go for reward.
My point is that while game should reward player and make it as fun and positive experience, game should also consider not trying to lure players to go reward paths, by showing them for player. Game system should hide all the information what player doesn't need and doesn't make players gaming better role-playing experience. Now some people may disagree with this as they may not consider role-playing as valuable options. That's fine, for those players it could be nice to make it more optional. That's why we have game settings, to customise the game for us players needs and situations. Meaning developers should consider more about what to hide from player and what to show as more optional and not make assumptions that everyone likes the way developers them self like.
Dialogs and consequences
Players want that they choices matters, but there is problem. Players can't really handle negative results that well, at least if they don't know how it happens. That's little problem for developers, because what we players want has conflicts what we can handle. Good example was ME2 Jack vs Miranda loyalty choice. In this forum we can see many people had problems with it, because players could not fully control the situation. They wanted best optimal result, but did not always been able to get it. This is players own fault as unable to handle negative situation. Even if there was some developers problems too in this situation, like missing situation where both become unloyal. This is good example players inability deal situations what they don't understand how it happen.
We want to choices what we make with dialogs actually mean something and lead "different" path, but can players deal the consequences of those choices is other question. In my opinion game should never allow always positive outcome, but more like the positive outcome maybe possible but not easy one. Nor player should be lead negative outcome too easy, because it can ruin player enjoyment of the game.
So, when we make choices with dialogs, it should mean something, but there has to be enough choices to make player feel like this is what I want to choose. At the moment it seem to be more like it doesn't matter what I choose because end result will be same, because game doesn't allow other situations. I think it happens because developers has design something to happen, but player doesn't want to do content how it was design. So, offer little more freedom how things happen. If player doesn't want to require some squad member, don't force player to do it. If player doesn't want to shoot or rescue npcs, don't force players to do it. Just make sure choice leads also consequences, what player is well aware.
Also don't show dialog choices what player can't choose (as gray). It's lure for meta-gaming. Don't assume player is sister Teressa or Hitler, player can be reasonable or just playful humorist. Meaning there is more than paragon and renegade extreme ways to play. Now don't get wrong, I do support long term consequences, even if those are hardest to players to accept. Mostly because no-one wants to remind them than they made bad choices in past.
Combat
I liked how the combat feeled in ME2 at least weapon one. How ever, some weapons like heavy wasn't so well done. I liked more in ME1 throw the grenades, than this heavy weapon concept. Variety is the key. Weapons needs to feel different enough in combat, so that situation where player is make player choose the weapon what is good for it. How ever, the choice has to be natural, not artificial created so that it doesn't make any sense. Like in ME2 there was too many handy cover possibilities. This makes game feel like game, not like you are there in real environment and fighting. So, everything what's in environment and what player does, has to be natural and feel like it's logical and make sense how it is.
I don't comment bionics combats, because I don't really much care about them. How ever, I do comment little bit class types as if some class isn't bionic, game should not offer bionic powers. Meaning keep classes what they should be, don't allow wrong class powers.
Customisation
I think customisation starts from character creation. I think Bioware does those pretty good, but there is few areas what could be improved. Hair styles are in my opinion most important thing in character customisation, not because it's more valuable than others, but because it's affect how character look is major impact. Most the time even how you change faces, you can't make characters look different. In the end the hair style was the major change. Look example Mass Effect female faces what players have made, most of them look pretty same. Biggest impact is coming from hair styles.
Other aspect in character creation is body models. There seem to be no possibility adjust body type at all, in biowares games. I think game should have at least few adjustable features in body too. Doesn't really make difference if the body is little funny, because it's single player game. What player want is what player should get.
Inside the game customisation is more like making character cloths and weapons and so on look like player wants. So, I don't see anything wrong how it was done in ME2 as Shepard's armor customisation. How ever putting other armors in DLC's wasn't good thing. There has to be enough base armors to choose and then adjust they looks like it was in ME2. This includes also the squad members armors.
One other thing is that combat armors should not be same as military uniforms and casual cloths. Meaning what kind of armor or cloth characters wear should be based situation what they are. Not point to be in combat armor in city when doing shopping, while all other npcs are in casual cloths. Combat armor belongs in combat situation and uniforms and casual cloths in normal "peace" situations. So, armor or cloth should depend the place where player character is.
Weapon customisation was almost none existing in ME2. In ME1 there was ability modding weapons. I think ability add mods on weapons should be done same way as it's done for armors in ME2. Like adding something change little bit the weapon too.
Vehicles
I have seen people talk here about vehicles weapons and so on. In my opinion those talks as opinions are totally useless, because people are consecrate to wrong points. I mean vehicles in game-play gives variety for the game-play it self. Hole point is that gameplay isn't just about combat as shooting like hell about everything. Vehicles are there for driving as giving different kind of experiments for player, so that hole game doesn't just feel combat only. Also one important aspect about vehicles is that when player is using the vehicles, player can feel the environment around of player. Vehicles should never become like some cheap arcade shooter game. Where vehicles are just pixels in screen to give illusion that game-play is different than normal combat.
Real important point of vehicles is driving and the environment where it happens. Environment should affect the vehicles based what kind of environment player is. If player is flying in atmosphere, there should be turbulence, not just some smooth flight. If player is under water, there should be water flow and air bubbles. If player is driving vehicles on land , player should feel the land and it should affect the driving.
I don't get this players attitude, about missiles, guns and so on. Those are 100% BS features. The major point of vehicles is driving as giving player totally different experience than just shooting. Sure, vehicles can have weapons and should have, but they aren't the major point. First get the vehicles driving simulation work well, then add the combat, if it's required.
Example Mako feeled like more vehicle compared to hammerhead, what feeled like half way arcade shooter, jumping, collecting and shooting. Damm Mass Effect should be more impression game to direction of simulation, than this simple gather mineral with mouse or jump with this pixel vehicles. My point it has to feel right, not just be handly action like in arcade games.
In any game feature, variety is the key for good game. Because if anything repeats too much, it's becomes boring. It doesn't even matter what it is, is it missions, combat, talks, driving, planets graphics look and so on. There need to be enough variety it to be interesting enough. That's why different kind of vehicles, environments and missions are important. They create the variety in game-play.
Impression.
One of most important thing after game-play is the impression what players get from the game world. If game world feels like it's alive and player doing actions like in cinematic movie, it's gonna feel better. This how ever, also means all game features needs to be consider from impression point too, not just practical point. Meaning game-play features should not break the impression badly, just because player needs to do something for his/her characters. Impression is build by creating small detail situation what feels and fit the situation where player is.
Also it can be consider as how player access to something, like is it just cold technical screen where player does something or is the feature masked to look something what makes more sense in game world perspective. Impression can be improved with small details like two npcs talking about engine problem on Normandy. It can be simulating air docking between Normandy and space station. It can be personal armor locker to access to armor modification. It's all about attitude of how stuff are made. One bad point of impression is that it doesn't often make game-play easier or faster. How ever, impression is most the time more important than doing something fast and easy. It's about finding compromise when impression on feature is too clumsy and when feature is easy to use.
Point is don't just think how something can be technically made function well for player, but what impression it leaves for player too. Did it improve players feeling game to be more alive?
Role-playing and meta-gaming
When people play games like Mass Effect they take a role of Shepard. Meaning they are role-playing. Ability role-play requires that player can create character they like to play and make choices inside the game what fits they characters role. So, character customisation is important and it's dialogs choices as having enough different ones. Now people in real life how ever, always look the perfect solutions, because games often rewards players doing certain stuff. Now this can lead meta-gaming, what means player doesn't anymore play the role, but plays role what is defined game developers with game design. This happens because game developers shows players how to get reward. If player see two opinion what one rewards and other doesn't, what player choose? Play the role and take what fits player character role or just go for reward.
My point is that while game should reward player and make it as fun and positive experience, game should also consider not trying to lure players to go reward paths, by showing them for player. Game system should hide all the information what player doesn't need and doesn't make players gaming better role-playing experience. Now some people may disagree with this as they may not consider role-playing as valuable options. That's fine, for those players it could be nice to make it more optional. That's why we have game settings, to customise the game for us players needs and situations. Meaning developers should consider more about what to hide from player and what to show as more optional and not make assumptions that everyone likes the way developers them self like.
Dialogs and consequences
Players want that they choices matters, but there is problem. Players can't really handle negative results that well, at least if they don't know how it happens. That's little problem for developers, because what we players want has conflicts what we can handle. Good example was ME2 Jack vs Miranda loyalty choice. In this forum we can see many people had problems with it, because players could not fully control the situation. They wanted best optimal result, but did not always been able to get it. This is players own fault as unable to handle negative situation. Even if there was some developers problems too in this situation, like missing situation where both become unloyal. This is good example players inability deal situations what they don't understand how it happen.
We want to choices what we make with dialogs actually mean something and lead "different" path, but can players deal the consequences of those choices is other question. In my opinion game should never allow always positive outcome, but more like the positive outcome maybe possible but not easy one. Nor player should be lead negative outcome too easy, because it can ruin player enjoyment of the game.
So, when we make choices with dialogs, it should mean something, but there has to be enough choices to make player feel like this is what I want to choose. At the moment it seem to be more like it doesn't matter what I choose because end result will be same, because game doesn't allow other situations. I think it happens because developers has design something to happen, but player doesn't want to do content how it was design. So, offer little more freedom how things happen. If player doesn't want to require some squad member, don't force player to do it. If player doesn't want to shoot or rescue npcs, don't force players to do it. Just make sure choice leads also consequences, what player is well aware.
Also don't show dialog choices what player can't choose (as gray). It's lure for meta-gaming. Don't assume player is sister Teressa or Hitler, player can be reasonable or just playful humorist. Meaning there is more than paragon and renegade extreme ways to play. Now don't get wrong, I do support long term consequences, even if those are hardest to players to accept. Mostly because no-one wants to remind them than they made bad choices in past.
Combat
I liked how the combat feeled in ME2 at least weapon one. How ever, some weapons like heavy wasn't so well done. I liked more in ME1 throw the grenades, than this heavy weapon concept. Variety is the key. Weapons needs to feel different enough in combat, so that situation where player is make player choose the weapon what is good for it. How ever, the choice has to be natural, not artificial created so that it doesn't make any sense. Like in ME2 there was too many handy cover possibilities. This makes game feel like game, not like you are there in real environment and fighting. So, everything what's in environment and what player does, has to be natural and feel like it's logical and make sense how it is.
I don't comment bionics combats, because I don't really much care about them. How ever, I do comment little bit class types as if some class isn't bionic, game should not offer bionic powers. Meaning keep classes what they should be, don't allow wrong class powers.
Customisation
I think customisation starts from character creation. I think Bioware does those pretty good, but there is few areas what could be improved. Hair styles are in my opinion most important thing in character customisation, not because it's more valuable than others, but because it's affect how character look is major impact. Most the time even how you change faces, you can't make characters look different. In the end the hair style was the major change. Look example Mass Effect female faces what players have made, most of them look pretty same. Biggest impact is coming from hair styles.
Other aspect in character creation is body models. There seem to be no possibility adjust body type at all, in biowares games. I think game should have at least few adjustable features in body too. Doesn't really make difference if the body is little funny, because it's single player game. What player want is what player should get.
Inside the game customisation is more like making character cloths and weapons and so on look like player wants. So, I don't see anything wrong how it was done in ME2 as Shepard's armor customisation. How ever putting other armors in DLC's wasn't good thing. There has to be enough base armors to choose and then adjust they looks like it was in ME2. This includes also the squad members armors.
One other thing is that combat armors should not be same as military uniforms and casual cloths. Meaning what kind of armor or cloth characters wear should be based situation what they are. Not point to be in combat armor in city when doing shopping, while all other npcs are in casual cloths. Combat armor belongs in combat situation and uniforms and casual cloths in normal "peace" situations. So, armor or cloth should depend the place where player character is.
Weapon customisation was almost none existing in ME2. In ME1 there was ability modding weapons. I think ability add mods on weapons should be done same way as it's done for armors in ME2. Like adding something change little bit the weapon too.
Vehicles
I have seen people talk here about vehicles weapons and so on. In my opinion those talks as opinions are totally useless, because people are consecrate to wrong points. I mean vehicles in game-play gives variety for the game-play it self. Hole point is that gameplay isn't just about combat as shooting like hell about everything. Vehicles are there for driving as giving different kind of experiments for player, so that hole game doesn't just feel combat only. Also one important aspect about vehicles is that when player is using the vehicles, player can feel the environment around of player. Vehicles should never become like some cheap arcade shooter game. Where vehicles are just pixels in screen to give illusion that game-play is different than normal combat.
Real important point of vehicles is driving and the environment where it happens. Environment should affect the vehicles based what kind of environment player is. If player is flying in atmosphere, there should be turbulence, not just some smooth flight. If player is under water, there should be water flow and air bubbles. If player is driving vehicles on land , player should feel the land and it should affect the driving.
I don't get this players attitude, about missiles, guns and so on. Those are 100% BS features. The major point of vehicles is driving as giving player totally different experience than just shooting. Sure, vehicles can have weapons and should have, but they aren't the major point. First get the vehicles driving simulation work well, then add the combat, if it's required.
Example Mako feeled like more vehicle compared to hammerhead, what feeled like half way arcade shooter, jumping, collecting and shooting. Damm Mass Effect should be more impression game to direction of simulation, than this simple gather mineral with mouse or jump with this pixel vehicles. My point it has to feel right, not just be handly action like in arcade games.
In any game feature, variety is the key for good game. Because if anything repeats too much, it's becomes boring. It doesn't even matter what it is, is it missions, combat, talks, driving, planets graphics look and so on. There need to be enough variety it to be interesting enough. That's why different kind of vehicles, environments and missions are important. They create the variety in game-play.
Modifié par Lumikki, 13 novembre 2010 - 01:42 .
#259
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 05:21
ScooterPie88
-
- Members
- 461 messages
GodWood wrote...
Lets say he won't buy it if its just like ME2, based on your post you're saying he should just STFU and GTFO which is stupid, he has the right to voice his complaints and hope they change ME3 for the better so he can actually enjoy it.ScooterPie88 wrote...
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.GodWood wrote...
Terror liked the first one but did not like the second one.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.
He wants the second to be more like the first but better.
Whats not to understand?
If he isn't then why should he care what's in it.
You're right I am saying that. If he isn't going to buy it he has no voice or at least not one that matters.
#260
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 06:56
Lumikki
-
- Members
- 4 239 messages
Even I don't deside before game is publised, do I buy it or not. What you should say, if person has allready deside not to buy the product, no matter what, then yes that persons opinion doesn't much matter. But we both know that isn't the case with Terror_K, why you even assume so?ScooterPie88 wrote...
You're right I am saying that. If he isn't going to buy it he has no voice or at least not one that matters.GodWood wrote...
Lets say he won't buy it if its just like ME2, based on your post you're saying he should just STFU and GTFO which is stupid, he has the right to voice his complaints and hope they change ME3 for the better so he can actually enjoy it.
Modifié par Lumikki, 13 novembre 2010 - 07:05 .
#261
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 09:46
Mr. Man
-
- Members
- 307 messages
ScooterPie88 wrote...
GodWood wrote...
Lets say he won't buy it if its just like ME2, based on your post you're saying he should just STFU and GTFO which is stupid, he has the right to voice his complaints and hope they change ME3 for the better so he can actually enjoy it.ScooterPie88 wrote...
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.GodWood wrote...
Terror liked the first one but did not like the second one.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.
He wants the second to be more like the first but better.
Whats not to understand?
If he isn't then why should he care what's in it.
You're right I am saying that. If he isn't going to buy it he has no voice or at least not one that matters.
The game hasn't even been announced yet, How can you say someone is/isn't going to buy something? In any case, Terror makes valid points...if he wants to vioce his opinion on how to make the game better that is his right. You, on the other hand haven't added anything to the table, and simply want anyone with a different idea of a good game to 'shut up'. Mind you, this is an RPG trilogy so to act all startled when someone doesn't want streamlining is really silly.
#262
Posté 13 novembre 2010 - 11:20
Googlesaurus
-
- Members
- 595 messages
ScooterPie88 wrote...
You're right I am saying that. If he isn't going to buy it he has no voice or at least not one that matters.
LOL. If Bioware only listens to people that will buy their games, they'll never make changes. Why should they when they're guaranteed to make money regardless of consumer satisfaction?
I agree with most of your post Lumikki except for the gameplay part. I may be a little biased as a Counter-Strike and Halo player, but I find the cover-shooter mechanic tedious and silly at times. It leads to situations like the entire denotation sequence during Tali's loyalty mission, not to mention enemies that almost always stay at mid-range distance.
Modifié par Googlesaurus, 13 novembre 2010 - 11:27 .
#263
Posté 17 novembre 2010 - 02:48
Terror_K
-
- Members
- 4 362 messages
Okay, back for a few days, then away again. Might as well answer in here.
I'm not sure whether I'm going to buy Mass Effect 3 yet or not, I don't know enough about it, and what I have heard is a mix of things that sound okay and things that don't sound overly promising, but they're still minor and vague so far, or too general to tell. I probably won't be able to truly tell until I play it, but if it doesn't sound promising I'll probably wait until it's cheap or obtain it... through other means, whereby I don't give BioWare money. In either case, after ME2 and the way Dragon Age 2 is looking, BioWare are no longer a company that I'll just automatically buy from on day 1 without a thought. As a loyal consumer for over a decade I feel somewhat betrayed by them lately.
So, will I buy ME3? That depends. Probably, eventually, if only to finish off the story. But it really depends on BioWare and whether they'll put things back on track or they decide to just continue on from where they left off with ME2. If I like the look of where ME3 is going I'll get it on day 1, if not, I'll wait and see... try and avoid what I can spoiler-wise.
I'm not sure whether I'm going to buy Mass Effect 3 yet or not, I don't know enough about it, and what I have heard is a mix of things that sound okay and things that don't sound overly promising, but they're still minor and vague so far, or too general to tell. I probably won't be able to truly tell until I play it, but if it doesn't sound promising I'll probably wait until it's cheap or obtain it... through other means, whereby I don't give BioWare money. In either case, after ME2 and the way Dragon Age 2 is looking, BioWare are no longer a company that I'll just automatically buy from on day 1 without a thought. As a loyal consumer for over a decade I feel somewhat betrayed by them lately.
So, will I buy ME3? That depends. Probably, eventually, if only to finish off the story. But it really depends on BioWare and whether they'll put things back on track or they decide to just continue on from where they left off with ME2. If I like the look of where ME3 is going I'll get it on day 1, if not, I'll wait and see... try and avoid what I can spoiler-wise.
#264
Posté 17 novembre 2010 - 04:27
trobbins777
-
- Members
- 494 messages
I don't know if it has been mentioned yet but i would like to see more specialist missions like the collector base battle. What i mean by this is the ability to assign squad mates out of squad roles. Roles that are important to the mission and can have some affect on the combat, but also have consequences if you choose the wrong person. This would not cause the death of a squad mate(at least not until later in the game), but hinders you or perhaps injures one of your squad mates making them unavailable for the next mission.
For example Lets say you are going to assault an eclipse base. EDI alerts you to a very effective(and very exposed) snipers perch. You are then given the option of assigning anyone with a sniper rifle. You choose Garrus because he is very skilled with a sniper rifle. He sets up and you begin the assault.
(Garrus is a good choice so he isn't injured in the fight .)
After working your way to the main building Garrus says he can't help you from the perch. You can either have him return to the ship and send for another squad mate, or have him rendevous with you later in the base.
As you fight through the building you find a security console that can hack the eclipse's LOKI mech's(similar to the turrets in legion's loyalty mission. They assist briefly then explode). However the operator must be a tech specialist. You chose Tali because she is a mechanical expert. And because of this you have a faster cooldown on the ability to hack LOKI mechs.
(Another smart choice)
Later on you finally reach what you wanted from the eclipse, but they would rather destroy the base than let whatever they have there fall into your hands so the bombard the base from orbit. You need to escape and fast, but the only problem is that large debris has trapped you inside the base. You are going to need a biotic to clear it. However, let's say you make a bad choice and choose Miranda(who is a good biotic but not the greatest at your disposal). She moves the debris while you Tali and Garrus hold off the last of the eclipse. This takes longer because of miranda's lack of biotic power and as a result Tali is hit with a piece of debris giving her a nasty concussion(making her unavailable for the next mission).
(Bad choice, Miranda is more of a team leader)
For example Lets say you are going to assault an eclipse base. EDI alerts you to a very effective(and very exposed) snipers perch. You are then given the option of assigning anyone with a sniper rifle. You choose Garrus because he is very skilled with a sniper rifle. He sets up and you begin the assault.
(Garrus is a good choice so he isn't injured in the fight .)
After working your way to the main building Garrus says he can't help you from the perch. You can either have him return to the ship and send for another squad mate, or have him rendevous with you later in the base.
As you fight through the building you find a security console that can hack the eclipse's LOKI mech's(similar to the turrets in legion's loyalty mission. They assist briefly then explode). However the operator must be a tech specialist. You chose Tali because she is a mechanical expert. And because of this you have a faster cooldown on the ability to hack LOKI mechs.
(Another smart choice)
Later on you finally reach what you wanted from the eclipse, but they would rather destroy the base than let whatever they have there fall into your hands so the bombard the base from orbit. You need to escape and fast, but the only problem is that large debris has trapped you inside the base. You are going to need a biotic to clear it. However, let's say you make a bad choice and choose Miranda(who is a good biotic but not the greatest at your disposal). She moves the debris while you Tali and Garrus hold off the last of the eclipse. This takes longer because of miranda's lack of biotic power and as a result Tali is hit with a piece of debris giving her a nasty concussion(making her unavailable for the next mission).
(Bad choice, Miranda is more of a team leader)
#265
Posté 17 novembre 2010 - 04:35
trobbins777
-
- Members
- 494 messages
Also one more thing. I think it would be awesome if they let our shepard's use thier signature class abilities and weapons in cutscenes. Instead of randomly putting an assault rifle in our shepard's hands for cutscenes. Give us our class weapon, Or have your shepard's biotics flare/Tech sheilds power up/omnitool/combat drone.
#266
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 08:41
Undertone
-
- Members
- 779 messages
Another thing that I just thought of (it's probably mentioned elsewhere but nonetheless) - let us keep all our armors, helmets and weapons we got in ME2 and take them to ME3. If not the weapons then at least the armors and helmets. It would be really annoying if the equipment doesn't go over and it's only ME2 exclusive. And when you do carry them over, make the helmets removable.
#267
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 04:34
Lowenhart
-
- Members
- 185 messages
One my only real big wishes is that Liara, Garrus or Tali doesnt die in ME3, canon wise.
That said i hope Zaaed will become a more solid crewmember with more done with his character, and hope we will see more to Aria as i thought her to be one the interesting characters. Then id love to see something new like a batarian crew member. and if we get yet another Krogan i really hope its Urdnot's scientist would be nice to see a krogan member who isnt a brawler for a change(maybe with a throw, warp or barrier along with tech skills or neural shock.
That said i hope Zaaed will become a more solid crewmember with more done with his character, and hope we will see more to Aria as i thought her to be one the interesting characters. Then id love to see something new like a batarian crew member. and if we get yet another Krogan i really hope its Urdnot's scientist would be nice to see a krogan member who isnt a brawler for a change(maybe with a throw, warp or barrier along with tech skills or neural shock.
Modifié par Lowenhart, 22 novembre 2010 - 04:36 .
#268
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 10:12
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien
-
- Members
- 5 177 messages
There is no 'canon' in Mass Effect, only the 'story' you help create. Considering that apart from the latter 2 having possibility to be killed in ME2, they have been constantly there and obviously with the fact Bioware is well aware of their fanbase. I doubt that they would have them die in ME3 no matter what choice is made unless it was pivotal to the moment.Lowenhart wrote...
One my only real big wishes is that Liara, Garrus or Tali doesnt die in ME3, canon wise.
That said i hope Zaaed will become a more solid crewmember with more done with his character, and hope we will see more to Aria as i thought her to be one the interesting characters. Then id love to see something new like a batarian crew member. and if we get yet another Krogan i really hope its Urdnot's scientist would be nice to see a krogan member who isnt a brawler for a change(maybe with a throw, warp or barrier along with tech skills or neural shock.
Course, in one of my playthroughs Tali is already most likely dead unless she miraculously managed to get off Haestrom without Shep's help. (I see Tali and Thane as the ME2 equivalent of Wrex ie. no recruit them, they end up dead anyway).
I've got a hunch Omega is gonna get blitzed and Aria might become a squadmate though not sure how they'd handle it totally from a 'character personality' perspective.
I know people are writing off Kasumi and Zaeed because they are DLC but I think that they could just as much return as 'returning' squadmates (not to be confused with 'being with Shep from the start' types).
The Krogan scientist would be a neat and refreshing change, but am not sure exactly if they would look at throwing another Krogan at us even if it was different from Wrex and Grunt, not to mention even if we've already had 2 Asari (Samara & Morinth count as 1).
For the potential Batarian Squadmate I sure as help hope that if it does happen that it is a: optional and b: some of the Sheps get to bring up their distrust/dislike/hate for Batarians considering potential Shep pre-history/profile options.
With regards any potential new human squadmate, the only 2 classes we've not had a human squadmate for is Vanguard and Engineer. So I reckon it would be cool to promote Kenneth to full on Engineer Squadmate and have it so if you take him on a mission after the mission if you go to engineering him and Gabby would be discussing the mission you went on talking in their usual manner that always made it fun going down to engineering every once in a while to hear what they would say.
Going more on that last chain of thought I do hope they keep that up with the crew in the next game (even if it is a replacement crew for those that got their previous crew killed), besides the aforementioned engineers, it was good to hear all the banter going on and conversations the crew would have. Also liked the odd couple of times that they would say stuff to Shep without a proper conversation taking place. Like post-SM if you save the crew how one of them talks about the guy who tried helping Joker (and you can see that guy in sick bay) or if you only save half how the remaining sidekick would mention something about the one that died (never actually done the 'only half crew' saved myself but seen it in videos). It all made the Normandy SR2 crew more alive than the SR1 crew were.
#269
Posté 23 novembre 2010 - 06:22
Undertone
-
- Members
- 779 messages
Bump. Make Paragons and Renegades equal in terms of content. Make Paragon choices blow up in their faces.
#270
Posté 23 novembre 2010 - 06:33
-Skorpious-
-
- Members
- 3 081 messages
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
With regards any potential new human squadmate, the only 2 classes we've not had a human squadmate for is Vanguard and Engineer.
Somewhere, in the far-reaching corners of the galaxy, Jacob still continues to be ignored.
Modifié par -Skorpious-, 23 novembre 2010 - 06:33 .
#271
Posté 24 novembre 2010 - 08:29
Undertone
-
- Members
- 779 messages
Another bump just because this thread is full of win.
If loyalty is ever introduced again in ME3 - have it be more similar to KotoR 2 or Dragon Age. The loyalty in ME2 was just retarded. Have the ability of crew members dislike you, leave you, betray you or try to get other team members to stage a coup or something similar.
If loyalty is ever introduced again in ME3 - have it be more similar to KotoR 2 or Dragon Age. The loyalty in ME2 was just retarded. Have the ability of crew members dislike you, leave you, betray you or try to get other team members to stage a coup or something similar.
#272
Posté 24 novembre 2010 - 09:16
Prazza
-
- Members
- 39 messages
Undertone wrote...
Another bump just because this thread is full of win.
If loyalty is ever introduced again in ME3 - have it be more similar to KotoR 2 or Dragon Age. The loyalty in ME2 was just retarded. Have the ability of crew members dislike you, leave you, betray you or try to get other team members to stage a coup or something similar.
+50 Paragon
+1 Interwebz
Totally agree with you.
#273
Posté 24 novembre 2010 - 10:04
Terror_K
-
- Members
- 4 362 messages
Despite writing a similar request in the original post, as was correctly brought up in response, it depends on whether loyalty is even really needed and fits into the plot.
I do know that some people are expecting a betrayal to occur in ME3 from a squaddie, since we've never really had that yet from the first two games, where the squaddies are largely loyal, whether you get their loyalty or not (though to be honest, it wasn't so much 'loyalty' in ME2 as it was a 'state of focus vs. distraction' kind of thing. It was more about getting your squaddies' issues out the way so they could keep their mind on the task at hand without being distracted rather than loyalty to Shepard. I mean, I imagine Garrus and Tali were already technically loyal to you anyway, but they both simply had things on their minds at the time). Whether this betrayal is from a set squaddie who will betray you because they're working for somebody else no matter what, whether they are somebody who can be brought around or whether this is a Death's Hand/Loghain type of thing (or even a Bastila kind of thing), I have no idea. There may not even be a betrayal at all, though it does seem one of the classic formulas that hasn't really been explored yet. I also know some people are awfully suspicious of the circumstances surrounding Kaidan/Ashley on Horizon in ME2 (i.e. first I'm frozen and ready to be collected, then I suddenly walk up to you fine and criticise you).
I do know that some people are expecting a betrayal to occur in ME3 from a squaddie, since we've never really had that yet from the first two games, where the squaddies are largely loyal, whether you get their loyalty or not (though to be honest, it wasn't so much 'loyalty' in ME2 as it was a 'state of focus vs. distraction' kind of thing. It was more about getting your squaddies' issues out the way so they could keep their mind on the task at hand without being distracted rather than loyalty to Shepard. I mean, I imagine Garrus and Tali were already technically loyal to you anyway, but they both simply had things on their minds at the time). Whether this betrayal is from a set squaddie who will betray you because they're working for somebody else no matter what, whether they are somebody who can be brought around or whether this is a Death's Hand/Loghain type of thing (or even a Bastila kind of thing), I have no idea. There may not even be a betrayal at all, though it does seem one of the classic formulas that hasn't really been explored yet. I also know some people are awfully suspicious of the circumstances surrounding Kaidan/Ashley on Horizon in ME2 (i.e. first I'm frozen and ready to be collected, then I suddenly walk up to you fine and criticise you).
#274
Posté 24 novembre 2010 - 10:22
Zulu_DFA
-
- Members
- 8 217 messages
If "betrayal" is going to occur, it'll be Liara. She may turn out to be working a lot closely with TIM, than she lets on in ME2, and, since the majority of players hates Cerberus, it will come across as a betrayal. Also, her name.
But I am sure she can be "redeemed", maybe through Shepard's "ultimate sacrifice". Maybe a point of the final choice.
But I am sure she can be "redeemed", maybe through Shepard's "ultimate sacrifice". Maybe a point of the final choice.
#275
Posté 24 novembre 2010 - 10:22
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien
-
- Members
- 5 177 messages
-Skorpious- wrote...
Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...
With regards any potential new human squadmate, the only 2 classes we've not had a human squadmate for is Vanguard and Engineer.
Somewhere, in the far-reaching corners of the galaxy, Jacob still continues to be ignored.
Ahh Jacob... (whenever I see Jacob mentioned I can't help but have Miranda saying that line in my head)
Despite the fact I actually listed everyones class in my head the other day whilst thinking of ways could 'triple' the numbers (for ME3) and coming to the conclusion of Thane and Jacob being Vanguards, I can't believe I didn't edit that post lol having said that probably because I keep thinking of Galaxy where he was more of a Sentinel than Vanguard.
Ok, I go with my idea of Ken being new squadmate
"Going to kick the Reapers in the daddybags!"
Edit: @Zulu no you got it all wrong, well not totally, it will be an Asari though, it'll be Aria and right at the end she'll redeem herself whilst helping Neo... I mean Shepard go confront the brains of the Reapers to stop them from taking out the last surviving humans, she'll die during the journey and then Neo... I mean Shepard will make a deal to sacrifice themselves for the rest of humanity.
That will be the most perfect and best ending ever because no one has ever done it before...
Woah! Deja vu!
Modifié par Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien, 24 novembre 2010 - 10:34 .
