Aller au contenu

Photo

My Idea of the Perfect ME3


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
342 réponses à ce sujet

#76
Zulu_DFA

Zulu_DFA
  • Members
  • 8 217 messages

Terror_K wrote...



* Get back to the pseudo 80's sci-fi roots of ME1; less of the modern Hollywood approach of ME2.



* I can't stress this one enough: give us proper combat and space capable outfits on people. No more having people run around in their civvies yet somehow getting the full benefits of kinetic shields and medi-gel dispensers. No more running around in dangerous environments affected by pressure, vaccuum, toxins, extreme temperatures, etc. with skin exposed and only a breather mask on, etc. It's stupid and shatters believability, pulling you right out of the experience. It's not cool, it's pathetic and moronic.



* Give companions both a civilian outfit and a combat outfit, just like Shepard (and like they sort of did in ME1). This eliminates the issue of them still having unique clothing while being able to go on dangerous missions without it seeming universe-shatteringly stupid. When more than half of the time you talk to them they're on the ship anyway, what's the real point in avoiding giving them armour to make them special. Besides, you can just give them their own special armour if we're still not going to be able to alter their outfits. That said...



* Bring back being able to alter their outfits. Maybe not loads of options. Even just a colour and pattern choice would be nice. That said, I'd be happy enough with just the above option of two outfits. Seriously... just eliminate the whole "running around in combat and dangerous environments unprotected in mere clothing" and I'll be happy enough merely with that.



* Change the HUD back to something more like ME1's HUD, or something new. The current one is too vague and unclear. Bring back the radar and/or mini-map too.



* Get rid of ammo-powers, the concept is stupid and makes no sense. Make them mods again like they were originally.



* If we're going to have The Hammerhead (I'd prefer not personally... awful vehicle) or some kind of vehicle, we need the following: a proper HUD (along with shields, a health bar and radar), the ability to save in it and the ability to exit and enter when we like. ... we need a proper exploration vehicle that's also combat capable that would make sense, not a zippy little platforming thing designed specifically for arcadey little games on overly designed worlds.



* Bring back crouch.



* Thermal clips. IMO the damage has already been done here, but some can be saved if the universe starts to actually see how backwards things are and decides to incorporate a hybrid system.



* The Renegade isn't supposed to just be a jerkwad, he's supposed to be the one who does what needs to be done to get the job done as fast as possible. This somehow needs to be reflected more and better.




I mostly agree with all of your points, but these I can't agree more with. The fact that ME2 lacks these makes it a retarded game.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 04 novembre 2010 - 09:29 .


#77
Jebel Krong

Jebel Krong
  • Members
  • 3 203 messages

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I mostly agree with all of your points, but these I can't agree more with. The fact that ME2 lacks these makes it a retarded game.


yes because these are the most important factors that define a "mass effect" game. and you called it retarded... <_<

#78
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages

Jebel Krong wrote...

i'll just take a few of your points as i don't want to derail your thread: in me1 every single character had the same body model (one female, one male), so when you had the ship-outfits or armour, it didn't matter - the models were the same and only the textures changed depending on the armour, in mass effect 2 all the body models are different (except the normandy crew), so having both systems would be a ton of work, not to mention memory allocation etc.

it might be a tad immersion-breaking for some on missions, but at least i don't confuse my squad with each other or enemies (not that you could in me1 because of the stupid ally AI) - when everyone looks the same it's just boring: i like looking at miranda in her sexy outfit, or liara in her lab coat thingy (LoSB), garrus in his damaged armour, thane in his custom suit etc - it helps me identify with the characters, despite the occasional absurdity of conditions.


Then as I suggested, why not give them both unique armour and outfits. It's a whole lot better than being taken so incredibly out of the game by the juvenile stupidity of then running around how they do in ME2, IMO. It's just so retardedly stupid and moronic... words can't do it justice how bad it is. It just completely ruins my immersion, more than anything else in the game. I can't take the universe seriously when BioWare can't even seem to.

does it matter? i mean really why does xp matter? it's just a (bad) way to show character development during the game. if they had no xp but you just unlocked certain skills or guns our outfits after finding them or research or tech on certain missions, that would be much better, imo, and more realistic (especially if the research took some time to complete). having a random lump sum (ME2) or some for every little action you take (ME1) is immersion-breaking and forces you to focus on: the fact that you're playing a game; and worrying about what xp you're getting and not the mission/dialogue etc.


It matters to me. One of the main reasons I play RPGs, both P&P and CRPGs, is the feeling that my character is growing. What your suggesting would basically stop the game being an RPG at all IMO and just make it a story-based shooter. I fail to see how standard RPG mechanics can make the game immersion-breaking... you are playing an RPG after all. And how is a small XP pop-up worse than the giant ones that pop up all the time in ME2? (I barely noticed the ME1 ones half the time, especially in combat).

i don't play paragons, but apart from the occasional silly/jerkwad comment i don't see this tbh - they both come out about the same. renegades are generally more ruthless, so there will always be a few more hats left on the ground than a paragon would leave, doesn't make them stupid/wrong.


No, but you get no real benefit for it either. If the Renegade got some kind of advantage then fine, but they don't: just a bunch of dead bodies who could be potential allies and give future quests when the paragon method would have got them exactly the same result but with less death. A renegade is supposed to be a character who does what he needs to to get the job done, but nothing the Renegade does is something he needs to do when the Paragon can do it better or the same in every case.

soldier is less useful, too, but you want to get rid of ammo powers - soldier in me2 is crap (and the reason i changed all my me1 soliers into infiltrators in me2 because that is an awesome class). i don't want to be forced to take characters i hate just to open boxes thanks!


Then why do you even play an RPG. The whole point of having defined classes is to make them unique and give them special abilities and specialties other classes don't have. When you can be the ultimate fighter, biotic, techie, persuader, etc. with one character there's no real need to play the others. classes are supposed to be defined and have roles, but all they are in ME2 is different ways to kill an enemy and that's it. classes in ME2 lack definiton and identity since non-combat skills disappeared.

you don't need arbitrary limits, and it's not god-modding, because the enemies scale up. i maintain there are cleverer ways of increasing difficulty than limiting the player at every turn. the technology within the universe (other than taking a huge step back with the ammo system) is sufficiently advanced that you can see the benefit of each upgrade without it being an either/or situation all the time. it's one of the reasons i thought the cooling system of me1 worked so well - it was reasonably realistic and if you were clever it didn't restrict the player overly.


It is God-modding. It's shallow, linear and pointless as it is now, completely eliminating proper progression, customisation and variation by giving all players everything on a silver platter without effort. It's so simple now you may as well not have it, and it's tedious and boring, and breaks the game entirely. Without trade-offs and player choice and customisation the whole thing is meaningless, especially when everything is in the same place in every playthrough so every player in every playthrough ends up with the same result. You don't need to pick and choose when you can have everything, and that's not good for choice and progression. RPGs need systems that limit them and force them to choose.

again: i don't want to be forced to take characters i hate just to accomplish a certain simple task!


Who said anything about forcing you to take characters with regards to this? How does upgrading and choosing what omni-tool or biotic amp you or your squaddies have mean that you have to take a certain companion to do things? That's like putting down the idea of having gun-upgrades because you always want to use biotics. In a sense they're already there in research/upgrade boosts, but like the rest of the system it's linear and shallow and allows you to have your cake and eat it too with no trade-offs.

Overall it seems to me that you simply don't like good RPG mechanics and conventions and just want to have everything without limits and a complete lack of gameplay depth. If you want a story-based shooter with dialogue rather than an RPG then fine, but that's not what Mass Effect was intended to be, and not what I want at all, so... you're pretty much wasting your breath in this thread, sorry to say. I'm willing to compromise and come up with alternatives, but not with those who just was oversimplification and shallow, linear mechanics that do half the work for you and give you everything on a silver platter.

#79
Jebel Krong

Jebel Krong
  • Members
  • 3 203 messages

Terror_K wrote...

It matters to me. One of the main reasons I play RPGs, both P&P and CRPGs, is the feeling that my character is growing. What your suggesting would basically stop the game being an RPG at all IMO and just make it a story-based shooter. I fail to see how standard RPG mechanics can make the game immersion-breaking... you areplaying an RPG after all. And how is a small XP pop-up worse than the giant ones that pop up all the time in ME2? (I barely noticed the ME1 ones half the time, especially in combat).


as i showed with my examples you can show character growth in more than the stereotypical "rpg" way. you are scared of change aren't you? - every game has to follow exactly the path set out before, time immemorial, conforming to each tick-box in your imaginary rpg-must-have check-list. no change, no innovation, nothing.

here's a tip: games have improved and innovated constantly, the old definitions no longer apply.

Terror_K wrote...

soldier is less useful, too, but you want to get rid of ammo powers - soldier in me2 is crap (and the reason i changed all my me1 soliers into infiltrators in me2 because that is an awesome class). i don't want to be forced to take characters i hate just to open boxes thanks!


Then why do you even play an RPG. The whole point of having defined classes is to make them unique and give them special abilities and specialties other classes don't have. When you can be the ultimate fighter, biotic, techie, persuader, etc. with one character there's no real need to play the others. classes are supposed to be defined and have roles, but all they are in ME2 is different ways to kill an enemy and that's it. classes in ME2 lack definiton and identity since non-combat skills disappeared.

*snip*

Overall it seems to me that you simply don't like good RPG mechanics and conventions and just want to have everything without limits and a complete lack of gameplay depth. If you want a story-based shooter with dialogue rather than an RPG then fine, but that's not what Mass Effect was intended to be, and not what I want at all, so... you're pretty much wasting your breath in this thread, sorry to say. I'm willing to compromise and come up with alternatives, but not with those who just was oversimplification and shallow, linear mechanics that do half the work for you and give you everything on a silver platter.


once again you forget that mass effect games were never designed to be true rpgs - they are a hybrid, so you can't/shouldn't judge them the same as DAO, for example.

that said, you can have defined classes (another rpg convention - why not just have a customisable character you can play to your preference than rigid "classes" that obviously have problems being differentiated enough in skills) without resorting to cheap mechanics to make them appealing. the tech person is about crowd control and tech powers, not about opening locked crates!

i like good mechanics (not just rpg ones) - i don't care where they come from - but they must make sense, from both a universe and gameplay perspective: mass effect removed some of the skills because people explicitly complained about having to either be a certain class or take certain squadmates just to do certain, minor things - that's not reasonable nor logical nor universe-consistent (nor indicative of "depth").

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 04 novembre 2010 - 10:54 .


#80
Terror_K

Terror_K
  • Members
  • 4 362 messages

Jebel Krong wrote...

as i showed with my examples you can show character growth in more than the stereotypical "rpg" way. you are scared of change aren't you? - every game has to follow exactly the path set out before, time immemorial, conforming to each tick-box in your imaginary rpg-must-have check-list. no change, no innovation, nothing.

here's a tip: games have improved and innovated constantly, the old definitions no longer apply.


For starters, eliminating RPG mechanics and falling back on even more old-hat and hackneyed shooter ones is hardly innovation in my books. That's why it makes me laugh whenever somebody brings this up in defense of ME2... ME1 was far more innovative and fresh than ME2 was in almost every aspect. ME2 is generic for the most part, and the direction it took wasn't a fresh or innovative one, it was just making it more like every other story-driven action game that's come out in the last half a decade. In either case, good mechanics are good mechanics no matter how old they are. Innovation isn't necessary either, but what ME2 did was hardly innovation at all anyway. And I'll bet those who support ME2 would be perfectly happy if ME3 was 90% the same, despite supposedly being advocates of innovation. You're not: your advocates of what you like, just like everybody else.

Secondly, I happen to like RPG mechanics for the most part. It's got nothing to do with a checklist, since I accept that Mass Effect doesn't have, need or warrant many classic RPG tropes such as turn-based combat, base stats (i.e. Str, Con, Int, Dex, etc.) or pointless skills like Swimming, Athletics, etc. either. I happen to enjoy common RPG elements like customisation, having to choose, character building, item management, upgrading and modifying things, etc. What you're supporting --and what BioWare did with ME2-- is counterintuitive to all these things. The upgrade/research system is a classic example of this, by not only completely eliminating choices, customisation and trade-offs for God-modding linearity that does everything for you, but also kicked out weapons mods, interesting items, omni-tools and biotic amps, upgrades, etc. as well.

This is a trend I don't like seeing in games as it is: where player choice and interaction is taken away in favour of auto-doing everything. It's like the equivalent of playing a game and your bigger brother wrestling the controller off you as soon as you attempt to do anything even remotely complex as if to say "You're doing it wrong! I'll just do it all for you, the correct way!

All this does is ****** off gamers like me who want choice, depth, customisation and variation in favour of the ADD-riddled masses who only want to shoot things and move on and don't want to be bothered by anything remotely complicated in case it gets in the way of their game and ruins their flow or some other BS excuse. That's why it's all dumbing-down and not merely streamlining like BioWare claimed. It's all very well to not force players to do things they don't want, but it's another entirely to not even give them the choice and create a shallow system that does everything for you without any input at all.

I've only completed ME2 three times because I don't really see the point in playing any more. There's no real satisfactory RPG gameplay left at all... it's all been culled or set to auto-pilot to appeal to the mainstream gamers who don't want to deal with it and all that's left is shooting and talking.

once again you forget that mass effect games were never designed to be true rpgs - they are a hybrid, so you can't/shouldn't judge them the same as DAO, for example.

that said, you can have defined classes (another rpg convention - why not just have a customisable character you can play to your preference than rigid "classes" that obviously have problems being differentiated enough in skills) without resorting to cheap mechanics to make them appealing. the tech person is about crowd control and tech powers, not about opening locked crates!

i like good mechanics (not just rpg ones) - i don't care where they come from - but they must make sense, from both a universe and gameplay perspective: mass effect removed some of the skills because people explicitly complained about having to either be a certain class or take certain squadmates just to do certain, minor things - that's not reasonable nor logical nor universe-consistent (nor indicative of "depth").


I don't, as I said above. And originall ME1 was an RPG, it just happend to use TPS combat. It's only with ME2 that it's actually really become a hybrid.

And as I've said before many times, I believe that every aspect of ME1 had a place in the Mass Effect universe and in the style of game they were making. Not necessarily in the form it took in ME1, but it still had a place. As far as I'm concerned it's definitely reasonable and logical. And as for universe-consistent, ME2 has done far more damage as far as that goes (thermal clips, squaddies without proper protection, nerfed biotics, computers any fool can hack, crates any fool can open, etc.). Nothing was out of place in ME1 as far as I was concerned... it just needed to take another form.

#81
Icinix

Icinix
  • Members
  • 8 188 messages
I loved ME2, make no mistake, but the vast majority of those suggestions I certainly agree with.



Probably the only one I would be concerned about is the urgency of time, for a story purpose this works, but my own preference is to play RPG's at a sedately pace when not directly in an active / fight section. Being forced to accomplish things at pace would irritate me no end.

#82
Jebel Krong

Jebel Krong
  • Members
  • 3 203 messages

Terror_K wrote...

I don't, as I said above. And originall ME1 was an RPG, it just happend to use TPS combat. It's only with ME2 that it's actually really become a hybrid.


given that you continue to live under that delusion, when reality is clearly showing you otherwise, i'm not going to bother arguing with you further on it.

thankfully development on ME3 is unlikely to revert to any previous iteration anyway, so we'll have something new to argue over in 2012/whenever...

#83
Getorex

Getorex
  • Members
  • 4 882 messages

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

as i showed with my examples you can show character growth in more than the stereotypical "rpg" way. you are scared of change aren't you? - every game has to follow exactly the path set out before, time immemorial, conforming to each tick-box in your imaginary rpg-must-have check-list. no change, no innovation, nothing.

here's a tip: games have improved and innovated constantly, the old definitions no longer apply.


For starters, eliminating RPG mechanics and falling back on even more old-hat and hackneyed shooter ones is hardly innovation in my books. That's why it makes me laugh whenever somebody brings this up in defense of ME2... ME1 was far more innovative and fresh than ME2 was in almost every aspect. ME2 is generic for the most part, and the direction it took wasn't a fresh or innovative one, it was just making it more like every other story-driven action game that's come out in the last half a decade. In either case, good mechanics are good mechanics no matter how old they are. Innovation isn't necessary either, but what ME2 did was hardly innovation at all anyway. And I'll bet those who support ME2 would be perfectly happy if ME3 was 90% the same, despite supposedly being advocates of innovation. You're not: your advocates of what you like, just like everybody else.

Secondly, I happen to like RPG mechanics for the most part. It's got nothing to do with a checklist, since I accept that Mass Effect doesn't have, need or warrant many classic RPG tropes such as turn-based combat, base stats (i.e. Str, Con, Int, Dex, etc.) or pointless skills like Swimming, Athletics, etc. either. I happen to enjoy common RPG elements like customisation, having to choose, character building, item management, upgrading and modifying things, etc. What you're supporting --and what BioWare did with ME2-- is counterintuitive to all these things. The upgrade/research system is a classic example of this, by not only completely eliminating choices, customisation and trade-offs for God-modding linearity that does everything for you, but also kicked out weapons mods, interesting items, omni-tools and biotic amps, upgrades, etc. as well.

This is a trend I don't like seeing in games as it is: where player choice and interaction is taken away in favour of auto-doing everything. It's like the equivalent of playing a game and your bigger brother wrestling the controller off you as soon as you attempt to do anything even remotely complex as if to say "You're doing it wrong! I'll just do it all for you, the correct way!

All this does is ****** off gamers like me who want choice, depth, customisation and variation in favour of the ADD-riddled masses who only want to shoot things and move on and don't want to be bothered by anything remotely complicated in case it gets in the way of their game and ruins their flow or some other BS excuse. That's why it's all dumbing-down and not merely streamlining like BioWare claimed. It's all very well to not force players to do things they don't want, but it's another entirely to not even give them the choice and create a shallow system that does everything for you without any input at all.

I've only completed ME2 three times because I don't really see the point in playing any more. There's no real satisfactory RPG gameplay left at all... it's all been culled or set to auto-pilot to appeal to the mainstream gamers who don't want to deal with it and all that's left is shooting and talking.

once again you forget that mass effect games were never designed to be true rpgs - they are a hybrid, so you can't/shouldn't judge them the same as DAO, for example.

that said, you can have defined classes (another rpg convention - why not just have a customisable character you can play to your preference than rigid "classes" that obviously have problems being differentiated enough in skills) without resorting to cheap mechanics to make them appealing. the tech person is about crowd control and tech powers, not about opening locked crates!

i like good mechanics (not just rpg ones) - i don't care where they come from - but they must make sense, from both a universe and gameplay perspective: mass effect removed some of the skills because people explicitly complained about having to either be a certain class or take certain squadmates just to do certain, minor things - that's not reasonable nor logical nor universe-consistent (nor indicative of "depth").




Actually, I would prefer a non-class-based system BUT limit what any person can do (so you cannot ever be a jack-of-all-trades). It is reasonable and realistic to have to bring along other specialists to be able to balance out the skillset in a squad. NO one is a jack-of-all-trades.

Real squads bring a designated sniper, a heavy weapon person, a machine-gunner to provide cover and overwatch, etc. NO one carries all the weapons and has all the skills to do it on their own if they chose.

Thus, you make team members limited in scope, including yourself, but abandon the hard-coded class wherein THIS class has access to any and all weapons but that one only has pistols and SMGs. Sure, force a tradeoff (you really can't carry an AR, pistol, sniper rifle, shotgun, and a heavy). You shouldn't have a whole slew of powers/tech at your personal disposal either. You can do this OR you can do that, what you cannot do is ALL of them. Your teammates can do this OR they can do that. Pick and then do tactics and strategy to obtain the best mix of abilities for a mission.

Modifié par Getorex, 04 novembre 2010 - 12:14 .


#84
Getorex

Getorex
  • Members
  • 4 882 messages
[quote]Jebel Krong wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]
completely disagree - i liked the individual outfits in ME2, and whilst i would have preferred extra outfits for certain environments, i can forgive not wearing full helmets if i can see characters faces in conversations etc. dressing your squad yourself in me1 was almost as dumb as the armour system itself was (the same armour in different colours - wowee).[/quote]

Sorry, but I won't step aside from this request. I'm not saying we can't have individual outfits, just that them running around in dangerous environment and battle in civvies while being perfectly fine and getting all the benefits of a set of armour (including kinetic shields and medigel dispensers) is immersion-breakingly retarded and stupid, and I personally think whoever thought it was a good idea should have been fired from the Mass Effect team. That is how much I hate it and how pathetically stupid I think it is.

I'd be simply happy with two outfits for each crewmember if they're going to continue this whole "non customisable" approach with ME3: a set of civvies for on the ship and in non-combat locales, and a proper set of armour for combat that's also unique to them. Like Shepard, Grunt and Garrus the helmet only needs to appear when the places are hazardous. Considering a great majority of the time you speak to them they're on the ship anyway, I don't see the harm. Shepard has civvies and armour, so why not them? It's not too often one would be in hazardous places in conversations anyway. Ignoring the ability to actually dress your squaddies there, what was so bad about the ME1 method? They all wore their own gear on The Normandy and then proper armour in battle, with the helmet only up if you either told them to or they were in hazarous places. That made sense. ME2's retarded little "a breathing mask protects against all" method is beyond insulting to my intelligence, makes it look like the ME2 team don't give a damn about the integrity of their universe and just pulls me right out of the game every time I see it (especially with Jack).[/quote]

i'll just take a few of your points as i don't want to derail your thread: in me1 every single character had the same body model (one female, one male), so when you had the ship-outfits or armour, it didn't matter - the models were the same and only the textures changed depending on the armour, in mass effect 2 all the body models are different (except the normandy crew), so having both systems would be a ton of work, not to mention memory allocation etc.

it might be a tad immersion-breaking for some on missions, but at least i don't confuse my squad with each other or enemies (not that you could in me1 because of the stupid ally AI) - when everyone looks the same it's just boring: i like looking at miranda in her sexy outfit, or liara in her lab coat thingy (LoSB), garrus in his damaged armour, thane in his custom suit etc - it helps me identify with the characters, despite the occasional absurdity of conditions.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
mission complete screens need to go for sure, but i don't need random xp for reading a computer/whatever - it was removed in me2 to keep up the flow/immersion in the gameplay and story and it works - if you are spending all your time just worrying about maximising your xp for every little thing then you're not playing properly (and i have OCD enough that i explore absolutely everywhere many times, regardless).[/quote]

Sorry, but ME2 dumbed down the XP experience so much I'm not even sure if I am getting XP and it's not just a random number being thrown at me. I have no context and no sense of accomplishment, especially when the number is the same no matter what I did or how I approached things. The whole point of XP beyond leveling up is the concept that you're earning it for your efforts. With ME1 I knew when I was getting XP, why I was getting XP and was rewarded more for doing more or making the extra effort. With ME2 it's just an arbritrary number that's meaningless and inevitable to me, no matter how I go about things.

Also, I feel there are too many things that have gone in favour of immersion. And it amazes me how many things BioWare changed in order to improve immersion, yet completely ruin any sense of it entirely far more than ME1 ever did with things like "Mission Complete" screens, loading screens, linear levels, a lack of true variation on consequences, The Hammerhead as a whole and squaddies running around in pyjamas with breathing masks in dangerous places and combat.[/quote]

does it matter? i mean really why does xp matter? it's just a (bad) way to show character development during the game. if they had no xp but you just unlocked certain skills or guns our outfits after finding them or research or tech on certain missions, that would be much better, imo, and more realistic (especially if the research took some time to complete). having a random lump sum (ME2) or some for every little action you take (ME1) is immersion-breaking and forces you to focus on: the fact that you're playing a game; and worrying about what xp you're getting and not the mission/dialogue etc.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
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?[/quote]

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.[/quote]

you don't always have paragon and renegade options, but in important cases, where it makes sense, obviously you do - partly to impart gravitas to the situation and also because it emphasises to you (player) and shepard your effect on the gameworld - if all you are doing is talking and then every situation ends in peace or a gunfight regardless, that's rubbish - i want to see more interrupts (mega i-win) and dynamic mechanics, not less.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
then you have to build more content for paragons and make up for that with more for renegades, too - further adding to the already-enormous workload of choices to be resolved/seen through.[/quote]

The reason I suggested this is because it always seems likt the Paragon options get the better outcomes. It would be more realistic and balanced if now and then the Renegade options actually got the advantage. The whole game is supposed to be about the reality and depth of choices and consequences, but all it teaches us thus far is that "Paragon always wins and Renegade always loses out" for the most part. A Paragon choice almost never results in less lives saved than the Renegade one. The only real exception was the asari merc on Samara's recruitment quest who if you fell for her story and let her go you later found out she was a liar and was a psychotic murderer. Basically, I'm saying "more of this!" [/quote]

i don't play paragons, but apart from the occasional silly/jerkwad comment i don't see this tbh - they both come out about the same. renegades are generally more ruthless, so there will always be a few more hats left on the ground than a paragon would leave, doesn't make them stupid/wrong.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
no - i don't want to have to take tali just to open some boxes, and if you're giving alternatives anyway you might as well not arbitrarily limit the player for the sake of convention.[/quote]

But as it stands it's made the tech character nowhere near as useful, when they used to be the "rogue/thief" of the ME universe. It also makes the mini-games completely pointless, especially when they're so easy. For the sake of convention or not, the whole angle has been dumbed down for the sake of simplicity, shallowness and making combat the only real point of the game. There needs to be obstacles and challenges beyond just killing things, and that's always what locks, crates, traps, etc. have been about. ME2 makes them pointless... it's pathetic.[/quote]

soldier is less useful, too, but you want to get rid of ammo powers - soldier in me2 is crap (and the reason i changed all my me1 soliers into infiltrators in me2 because that is an awesome class). i don't want to be forced to take characters i hate just to open boxes thanks!

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
NO - i don't like the me1 system, you certainly don't need so many levels of the self-same ****. ME2 did this ok, just didn't have enough guns to start with, as mentioned already. again i don't like arbitrary limits as a gameplay convention.[/quote]

It's not an abritrary limit. The ME2 research/upgrade system is so broken, it's more God-modding and breaking than the much maligned Spectre Weapons ever were. Being able to upgrade everything to the max without any effort is just linear and makes a mockery of the whole point of RPG upgrade systems entirely. It takes away choice and customisation by not limiting the player and forcing choice on them, which is what's needed. As it stands everybody can just mod everything to the max without really even maying attention with no downside: it's so insultingly linear and stupid and makes the whole system arbritrary: you may as well have the whole thing do all the work for you, because it already does beyond you clicking some buttons every so often, especially when every damn upgrade is in the same tedious place every time.

Sorry, but this is one of my biggest beefs with the game and I really think it either needs to go or needs some major tweaking. It's a classic case of modern games dumbing things down so much and doing most of the work automatically for the player to the point of pointlessness and taking away player choice and customisation in the process. This is an element so in need of fixing to me that if BioWare end up just keeping it the same the game will automatically be a failure in my books and worse than ME1.[/quote]

you don't need arbitrary limits, and it's not god-modding, because the enemies scale up. i maintain there are cleverer ways of increasing difficulty than limiting the player at every turn. the technology within the universe (other than taking a huge step back with the ammo system) is sufficiently advanced that you can see the benefit of each upgrade without it being an either/or situation all the time. it's one of the reasons i thought the cooling system of me1 worked so well - it was reasonably realistic and if you were clever it didn't restrict the player overly.

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
[quote]
unnecessary and ties into bringing otherwise useless squad-mate "y" that i hate for only that reason.[/quote]



Disagree completely. The elimation of both was just a classic case of oversimplification. Everybody who needs them has them anyway, so why not actually give us some choice and customisation when it comes to this instead of just doing it all automatically for you. Another victim of the awful research/upgrade system that needs to return to give the game some depth.
[/quote]

again: i don't want to be forced to take characters i hate just to accomplish a certain simple task!

[/quote]

Ah, but THAT is realistic. You don't get to choose your team/platoon based on personal like or dislike. You are a TEAM regardless and you use the skillset of the members that are the best fit for the mission. You never say, "I don't like you Jenkins, even though you have the perfect skills to balance the weaknesses of the rest of the squad. You stay here and I'll choose a chick with a hot body instead and suck it up that her skills aren't the right match for this particular mission".

Childish and silly really.

#85
Jebel Krong

Jebel Krong
  • Members
  • 3 203 messages

Getorex wrote...

Actually, I would prefer a non-class-based system BUT limit what any person can do (so you cannot ever be a jack-of-all-trades). It is reasonable and realistic to have to bring along other specialists to be able to balance out the skillset in a squad. NO one is a jack-of-all-trades.

Real squads bring a designated sniper, a heavy weapon person, a machine-gunner to provide cover and overwatch, etc. NO one carries all the weapons and has all the skills to do it on their own if they chose.

Thus, you make team members limited in scope, including yourself, but abandon the hard-coded class wherein THIS class has access to any and all weapons but that one only has pistols and SMGs. Sure, force a tradeoff (you really can't carry an AR, pistol, sniper rifle, shotgun, and a heavy). You shouldn't have a whole slew of powers/tech at your personal disposal either. You can do this OR you can do that, what you cannot do is ALL of them. Your teammates can do this OR they can do that. Pick and then do tactics and strategy to obtain the best mix of abilities for a mission.


that's exactly what i already said: start with a blank template and specialise from there - if you wanna be a sniper, be a sniper and the game should let you conform to such (and then you have to pick team-mates that help counter the weaknesses in that specialisation etc to get the most out of them, but you aren't forced to do that) - it opens up all kinds of possibilities, rather than limiting them.

#86
Jebel Krong

Jebel Krong
  • Members
  • 3 203 messages

Getorex wrote...

Ah, but THAT is realistic. You don't get to choose your team/platoon based on personal like or dislike. You are a TEAM regardless and you use the skillset of the members that are the best fit for the mission. You never say, "I don't like you Jenkins, even though you have the perfect skills to balance the weaknesses of the rest of the squad. You stay here and I'll choose a chick with a hot body instead and suck it up that her skills aren't the right match for this particular mission".

Childish and silly really.


i assume you were addressing me? (with a really long quote...). squad leaders do choose people they do like, and have the skill-sets, you can't go on dangerous missions with someone you can't/don't trust (hence why jack - even loyal - is such an ill-fit for the suicide mission). i tend to choose people based on what i expect the mission could incorporate story-wise, or for interesting dynamics: mordin/grunt for anything genophage related, see if there's any reaction, tali/legion for anything quarian/geth related etc.

#87
Getorex

Getorex
  • Members
  • 4 882 messages

Jebel Krong wrote...

Getorex wrote...

Ah, but THAT is realistic. You don't get to choose your team/platoon based on personal like or dislike. You are a TEAM regardless and you use the skillset of the members that are the best fit for the mission. You never say, "I don't like you Jenkins, even though you have the perfect skills to balance the weaknesses of the rest of the squad. You stay here and I'll choose a chick with a hot body instead and suck it up that her skills aren't the right match for this particular mission".

Childish and silly really.


i assume you were addressing me? (with a really long quote...). squad leaders do choose people they do like, and have the skill-sets, you can't go on dangerous missions with someone you can't/don't trust (hence why jack - even loyal - is such an ill-fit for the suicide mission). i tend to choose people based on what i expect the mission could incorporate story-wise, or for interesting dynamics: mordin/grunt for anything genophage related, see if there's any reaction, tali/legion for anything quarian/geth related etc.


To even begin to bring in the idea of trust/distrust of squadies in ME2 is crazy. Even if you blow off a loyalty mission or fail in it, that squadie is loyal and will do NOTHING to undercut the mission. All it really means is if you use them in the "wrong" way in the suicide mission, they die. That's it. Nothing more. They don't fail to provide cover for you, they don't sell out and pass information to your enemies, etc. There IS no trust/distrust, only a question of do they die or not in the final battle and do they obtain the special power capability that is provided by a successful loyalty mission. That's it. Trust has zero to do with it.

I have succeeded quite well, for instance, in the suicide mission WITH Jack on the squad, not as the biotic shielder (a throwaway choice of no import). She is not any more a detriment than is Mordin or Grunt or anyone else. There are so few missions where it actually matters what squadmates you take that keeping any out "just because" is, while understandable, somewhat silly. One problem with soooo many squadmates to choose from is that there is little to really delineate them. It SHOULD be that you have a BEST choice for a mission and that the BEST choice vary with different missions so that you get punished with higher difficulty or near impossibility if you make the wrong choice (based on something like "I don't like her tattoos so she doesn't EVER go.") Hell, it is actually somewhat better, in replays, to take different mixes on each mission REGARDLESS of whether you like the character portrayed or not because you might get little rewards for doing so. You take Garrus (instead of Grunt) on your Mordin loyalty mission and it is the only way you will hear HIS humorous take on what makes a "fun" place to do combat. Sure, the potential for interesting dialog almost screams Grunt on that mission, but you will be disappointed because Grunt just doesn't seem to offer up any uniquely Krogan slant to Mordin and the genophage. Zip, zippo, nada, zilch.

Legion has a LOT of lost opportunity dialog associated with his character. Because in the final game you are restricted from gaining him on the team until just before you have to go off for the final battle, you can't get to them. Unless you hack the game files, that is, and STICK him on the team early.

Side note: the only missions that I have found thus far that actually seem to have some level of excellent vs merely OK squad makeup choice is Overlord and LoTSB. For Overlord, it is CLEARLY a mission best done with Tali and Legion. Why? You toss out two combat drones at a time AND you can hack a couple geth at a time. At any one moment, then, you could have your 2 squadmates plus one or two drones, plus a hacked geth on your team. Truly, I just got through Overlord again (insanity) using Legion and Tali and didn't even remotely bust a mental sweat. It was like playing on easy level.

Now with LotSB, what APPEARS to be a poor choice on that mission is Grunt. I am about to do it again with another squad makeup but Grunt just totally disappears in the boss battle against the Shadow Broker with the very first shot. He's like the first target for the SB and he goes down immediately. Every time I tried replaying that battle Grunt was first down and he was down permanent. Medigel wasn't an option. So, it appears that there are two DLC missions where it matters who you take...unless you ALWAYS lose your 3rd squadmate in the LotSB DLC...haven't played it enough to know. If that IS the case, then only Overlord seems to have a preferred/best squad mix.

Modifié par Getorex, 04 novembre 2010 - 01:28 .


#88
Ieldra

Ieldra
  • Members
  • 25 187 messages
Quite a long list. I agree with most. Extremely important points I agree with in green, Disagreements in red, commented ones in orange, comments in blue, everything else I agree with :

Terror_K wrote...

PRESENTATION

* Get back to the pseudo 80's sci-fi roots of ME1; less of the modern Hollywood approach of ME2.
**That needs clarification. I don't know which elements you consider parts of one or the other.
* Bring back larger areas if possible. Find a way to cheat it if need be if framerates can be an issue. Adding vehicle sections or things such as the Illium car chase in LotSB can help make places seem bigger for instance. Elevators couldn't hurt, so long as they weren't too slow. Transition cutscenes perhaps, where you may see Shepard walking and talking with somebody as the next area loads.
* Places need to feel more open and branch out more than they did in ME2. Have multiple routes, and bits that lead you off elsewhere.
* I can't stress this one enough: give us proper combat and space capable outfits on people. No more having people run around in their civvies yet somehow getting the full benefits of kinetic shields and medi-gel dispensers. No more running around in dangerous environments affected by pressure, vaccuum, toxins, extreme temperatures, etc. with skin exposed and only a breather mask on, etc. It's stupid and shatters believability, pulling you right out of the experience. It's not cool, it's pathetic and moronic.
* A Fallout/DAO series of summary screens post-ending outlining how your Shepard had a mass effect (sorry... couldn't help myself) on others would be nice too... just FYI. It'd be a nice way to really cap off the trilogy and let you see where your choices led beyond the games.
* No more one-piece armours without removable helmets. A helmet toggle option and/or a DAO style cinematic removal of helmets (except when it makes sense to have them on). I'd personally prefer just the former really, so one can have the bonus the helmet of choice gives you along with the option of whether you see it or not, but so that it appears when it needs to. That's pretty much what it was in ME1 after all.
* No more "Mission Complete" screens. Main missions should be summarised via discussing them on The Normandy with your crew, more akin to ME1, and then XP given out just after this for the mission. XP should also --as before-- be gained gradually and for your deeds in a clear, concise manner rather than as a meaningless lump sum with no context.
* Bring back elevators if possible instead of loading screens. This could also help make areas seem larger without them being larger if done right.
* Change the HUD back to something more like ME1's HUD, or something new. The current one is too vague and unclear. Bring back the radar and/or mini-map too.
**We need a minimap, yes. But ME2's HUD is OK.
* Get rid of ammo-powers, the concept is stupid and makes no sense. Make them mods again like they were originally.
**Most notably, get rid of powers the class shouldn't have, like Warp Ammo for non-biotics.
* If we're going to have The Hammerhead (I'd prefer not personally... awful vehicle) or some kind of vehicle, we need the following: a proper HUD (along with shields, a health bar and radar), the ability to save in it and the ability to exit and enter when we like.
* No multiplayer. Just... just no.

COMPANIONS

* Companions should have friendship paths as well as romance ones, allowing them to open up even when they aren't romantically linked with you (e.g. how Jack's full story isn't seen unless you're a male who romances her).
* More dialogue on missions. I'd suggest a mix of things for this. Have it so you can interact with them on-mission ala ME1, and bring back the ME1 style observation places, though more in the style of the interactive ME2 ones over the proximity + "make interesting noise" ME1 ones. Have it so they have a few phrases about each major place. Have Dragon Age Origins style trigger points. Even a few small elevators convos here and there.
* Have certain quests that only open up when you take a character to a certain location, somewhat akin to KotOR. For example, if you go to Palaven and have Garrus with you a little quest opens up.
* Have some conversations between characters now and then, even sometimes without Shepard there. Have them somewhat like KotOR 2 whereby you return to The Normandy from a mission and before resuming on the ship you see the odd little cutscene between two companions, sometimes related to Shepard, sometimes not. Have these things skippable for those who don't want to see them.
* Companions should weigh in more on quests and interact with each other based on your combinations as well as Shepard. Again, look to DAO for how to do this well. Even little things such as acknowledgement of the other companion can make a big difference (i.e. instead of simply saying "I think we should side with them on this, Shepard" have them say, "I agree with Garrus, we should join these people for this.")
* Give companions both a civilian outfit and a combat outfit, just like Shepard (and like they sort of did in ME1). This eliminates the issue of them still having unique clothing while being able to go on dangerous missions without it seeming universe-shatteringly stupid. When more than half of the time you talk to them they're on the ship anyway, what's the real point in avoiding giving them armour to make them special. Besides, you can just give them their own special armour if we're still not going to be able to alter their outfits. That said...
* Bring back being able to alter their outfits. Maybe not loads of options. Even just a colour and pattern choice would be nice. That said, I'd be happy enough with just the above option of two outfits. Seriously... just eliminate the whole "running around in combat and dangerous environments unprotected in mere clothing" and I'll be happy enough merely with that.
* A few "this or that" companions would be nice in ME3. i.e. you can either have this companion, or that one, but not both. Playing as one of them, if only briefly, would be cool too. For example, you have to split into two teams and at one point you control Shepard and his/her team while at another point you control the second team.
* Companion loyalty needs to be more than just a binary state of either loyal or not. There should be a level of trust each companion has for Shepard. These, IMO, should also vary depending on who they are as well as what you do, and their past with you. For instance, if Garrus and Tali were in ME3 they'd automatically have a really high level of trust automatically, but it would be even higher if you got their loyalty in ME2 and even higher again if you'd done their ME1 quests (Dr. Saleon and Geth Data respectively) and yet even higher if you'd romanced either of them. Beyond romance interests, the next highest would be those from ME2 you gained the loyalty of, then the likes of Kaidan/Ashley and then those who survived ME2 but you didn't get loyalty for, then newbies for ME3 (unless they were knew as squaddies but not new as characters, such as Anderson, Shiala, etc. who would get a little more loyalty, depending on circumstances). Note: This is only if loyalty needs to be a factor for ME3. If not, just don't have it, unless having it unlocks some bonus.
* Remember how with Kaidan or Ashley you could ask them "what's your opinion of the last mission?" after each main quest? Let's have that back, but for every companion. It would also be nice if companions commented on each other as they joined, so you could have a "what do you thing of X?" type query as well.

DIALOGUE

* Have certain situations where Charm and Intimidate aren't always the "win" button. Have it so that while you pass it doesn't always lead to the same general outcome. Have it so that some NPCs react more favourably to one over the other, and visa versa. For example, a krogan bounty hunter would see an Intimidate response as you being strong and respect that, while mere words and a kinder, friendlier approach he may see as weakness. On the other side of things, a human enslaved by some batarians would react well to a kind word, but think somebody who is intimidating is a bully and close off.
* Dialogue choices related more to both your backgrounds, as well as your class. Shepard has a pre-service history and his/her claim to fame so it would be nice to have these referenced a little more now and then.
* Dialogue choices related to your class. Perhaps an Adept would know something about biotics another class wouldn't, while an Engineer would know about mechanics and electronics and a Soldier may know more history about Earth conflicts, including The First Contact war.
* More Paragon choices should blow up in your face. While they net you the Paragon points and give a generally better outcome initially, have them so that down the line one or two may actually lead to a lesser outcome. For example, letting a criminal live and sent off with a warning is generally more Paragon and simply executing them, but then perhaps the criminal doesn't listen and causes some problems for people down the road.

COMBAT

* Bring back crouch.
* Keep universal cooldowns, but limit them to whatever type they are. i.e. a biotic attack affects only biotic powers, a tech ability affects only tech abilities, etc. Cooldowns need to be a little slower too; as it stands, it's barely offline long enough to make a difference.
No slower cooldowns if you keep universal or grouped cooldowns. That limits the "caster" classes too much. But I like the biotic/tech grouping, that makes a lot of sense.
* Thermal clips. IMO the damage has already been done here, but some can be saved if the universe starts to actually see how backwards things are and decides to incorporate a hybrid system.
* Not a fan of being forced to use weapons I don't want to. Either allow us to slot a particular gun type with nothing, or instead of limiting us to carrying one of each type simply give us a limited amount of areas to carry the weapons and allow us to carry what we want out of what's possible. If I can use shotguns, I should be able to carry two of them at the expense of another weapon if I like, or none of I prefer Pistols and SMGs. Though I'd advise that the hip slot should always only be able to carry a pistol... maybe an SMG.
* Use combat more to the advantage to create interesting situations and puzzles without deviating too far away from the main gameplay. Haestrom did this a little with its intense heat, and beyond that some of the gimmicks in some of the N7 missions (see below for more on that) could be better used as part of something larger in a main quest. Beyond that, look at Gears of War for inspiration on how to do this.

NON-COMBAT GAMEPLAY

* Bring back Hacking and Decrypting as skills for tech-based classes. That said, to counter the issue of needing a tech to do these things, give alternatives to other classes. Give soldiers a bash attack and biotics a biotic pulse for containers, at the risk of damaging contents. Beyond this make the timer slower for tech-based classes with less objects to deal with, simply making it faster and simpler for them.
* Bring back armour classes similar to ME1, but give them additional pros and cons. Heavier armour protects more, but at the cost of speed and weapon-switching time, while light armour offers less protection but makes you faster. Medium armour is the middle ground. Don't make players find different kinds, simply let the player choose in their customisation which type you want of the three. Keep it class restricted ala ME1, though allow other classes not capable of wearing heavy be able to buy the ability as training using credits.
* Above concept of bringing back armour classes revised to the following: Instead of having armour classes, have different armour pieces that reflect the difference. For example, some pieces will provide greater protection against damage, but because they're thicker they'd restrict movement slightly. Other lighter materials wouldn't protect as much, but actually provide more mobility and thus make you run and change weapons slightly faster at the cost of being slightly more vulnerable. It's up to the player how they mix and match these armour pieces and upgrades and not class restricted that way, while still adding depth and choice as well as limitations.
**I don't like anything that makes armor more complicated. No idea if this would count as too complicated, though. I'm undecided.
* Skill trees should branch off into two more diverse paths about halfway through, rather than at the very end branching off to two barely-different alternatives. For example, a biotic attack called Biotic Wave that is a simple shot of biotic energy to do small damage could split off into Shockwave and Biotic Orb, while another biotic power could split into either Lift or Pull. The player should then also be able to travel down both paths if they like, but at the cost of more points.
* Planet exploration should return. I'd doubt they'd go back to The Mako, though I would prefer it. The Hammerhead either needs a massive overhaul or needs to go; we need a proper exploration vehicle that's also combat capable that would make sense, not a zippy little platforming thing designed specifically for arcadey little games on overly designed worlds. If the UNC worlds were fewer and weren't as steep and had more intersting content on them I don't see The Mako being too much of an issue: just tweak the suspension and overall bounciness a little and it should be fine. In either case, be they UNC worlds or something akin to Overlord's main hub area or some of both, we need some proper exploration back.
**Planet exploration should return, but I do like the Hammerhead somewhat. I prefer a floating vehicle to a land vehicle, but it does need to lose the arcade-like feel, on that I absolutely agree.
* Planet scanning. Here to stay I believe. If that's the case, it needs some tweaking, though I was never as bothered by it as most were to be honest (funnily enough, considering how much of ME2 I didn't like). I'm not sure what exactly needs done here. Make it too easy and it becomes pointless... too hard and/or repetitive and it becomes annoying.
**Planet scanning as it was in ME2 must go!!
* There needs to be better mini-games overall. The current ones are too simple, even without making the timer slower later on with the upgrade. Alpha Protocol had some good examples of how to do this as its hacking, decryption and unlocking mini-games were all better done: not too easy or long, but also just challenging enough to make them not a cake walk.
* The Renegade isn't supposed to just be a jerkwad, he's supposed to be the one who does what needs to be done to get the job done as fast as possible. This somehow needs to be reflected more and better.
* Persuasion needs to be done better in ME3 than it was in ME2, which discouraged proper roleplaying by having your level of Paragon/Renegade determining your ability to perform said actions and beyond that only tied it into a combat skill with persuasion stuff tacked on, which resulted in players often either having to be pure Paragon or Renegade or suffer not having the points to perform actions, discouraging more neutral players and those who liked to mix and match. Either return the separate Charm/Intimidate skills ala ME1, or (preferably) have a single Persuasion skill that the player must invest points in to perform either action.
**I prefer the option to spend points in one skill which adds to your ability to intimidate or charm.

INVENTORY AND ITEMS

* An inventory system doesn't need to come back, but there does need to be more inventory and more meaningful inventory overall.
* More weapons overall. ME1 had too many, ME2 far too few. If we had all the ME2 DLC items along with all the ME2 items in ME3 it would be about right, so I pretty much suggest that.
* Visible stats on weapons and armour. Simple as that.
* Armour should act like armour again. As it stands it doesn't even protect, and is more akin to wearing a bunch of rings or amulets rather than armour. To avoid the whole "but I'm forced to wear a style I dislike for max protection" just make sure that the outer plates are customisible and that it's the underlay and material that determines the protection.
* Bring back weapon mods. Not necessarily all the same ones as in ME1, but in some form. I'd like to see things like Combat Optics back though, but other things such as laser sights, scopes, thermal clip storage, etc. as well. Could be bought, found or created. These need to be limited so the player has to choose and can't just slot everything, so as to avoid...
**I should add that it would be best to limit mod changes so that you can only change stuff in your base or at special points. To make them possible on a mission you'd need an inventory system, and I'm glad that's gone.
* The research/upgrade system. Should remain, but needs an overhaul. Should no longer be able to upgrade everything to max any more as this is basically God-modding. This is how guns should basically be leveled (i.e. instead of having tiers I to X ala ME1, you upgrade from I to X using research, and only have to once for each type of weapon). Use this to make mods for weapons and armour.
* Bring back omni-tools and biotic amps. Have fewer of them, but have each one different in its benefits and weaknesses. Faster cooldown for less damage, or more damage for slower cooldown, or a more balanced one, etc. No one should be clearly superior to the others. These should also be able to be upgraded via the research system. Perhaps a single, specific boosting mod could go into each one too.
* The Normandy. More sprucing up would be nice, though I'd like to see this not as high a priority as it was in ME2. If you have the time things like "trophies" and other momentos from certain missions to keep in your quarters would be good. Beyond this, I'd also like to de-Cerberize it in ME3 if possible. Let me give the SR2 a more SR1 style paintjob, or even something more independent. I just want rid of the Cerberus decals in some way now.

MAIN QUESTS + STORY/NARRATIVE

* This is the main one: More meaningful consequences. Make my decisions actually feel important. Real, different outcomes too, none of these weak substitutes where the outcome is basically the same and only the character changes or one or two pieces of dialogue change, but the rest is identical. The Council decision should have changed Council space a lot, but didn't. Wrex being or not being on Tuchanka should have greatly changed it, but it didn't. Kaidan or Ashley surviving should have changed more than simply who met you on Horizon, but it didn't. I believe the point is made.
**I should add that I expect those "wildly diverging outcomes" mentioned in an interview. Here's the chance to do things unrestrained by the need to create a sequel. Use it, please!
* Councilor Udina is canon. Please at least give some kind of explanation for those of us who chose Anderson beyond a forced retcon. Have the rest of The Council demote him or the Alliance ask him to step aside for Udina because they feel Udina better represnts them or something... just don't leave it like it is now with nothing else.
* More alternate branches on quests as a whole. Noveria in the original game is the example of how to do this: half a dozen ways to get the garage pass at Port Hanshan, then other alternatives at Peak 15 itself. ME2's quests were too linear beyond the odd dialogue choice towards the end and pretty much always ended in the same result... ME3 needs more choices, more alternatives and more outcomes. Relating to my notes above in the DIALOGUE section, there could be different paths for Paragons and Renegades even.
* Narrative reasons to do sidequests, particularly if this is another "race against time" style story. Give us a natural pause in the narrative where somebody says to you "before you proceed it'll take some time to do this" or something, then the player can choose to either skip straight to the next day (or week, or whatever) or use the time to go and do sidequests. This way the flow of the narrative isn't interrupted for those who want a logical reason to do sidequests, while those who don't and just want to get on with it can, but can always do sidequests later too if they so chose.
* If this is a "race against time" story reflect that more some how. Make things harder for players who do more sidequests before the final part by having more enemies because they've had more time to gather their forces, or have more worlds fall to The Reapers if you take too long or something. If the game is open-ended and you provide the right narrative reasons to do sidequests and the player chooses to go about things smartly then they should still be able to do everything without being too punished. We saw a little of this with you wasting time after the crew had been taken in ME2, so it would be nice to see more along these lines.
* Like ME2, I'd like the game to be open-ended if possible, so you can play after the credits. Not just for DLC purposes, but for special post-game content you can only get after the main story is complete. Things like news reports on your exploits, people acknowledging them via dialogue. I'd also like to steal an idea from Oblivion: the statue you get of yourself based on your actual character. A statue of Shepard should appear on The Presidium or somewhere else at the end of it all, based on your own Shepard's face and armour and everything.

SIDE QUESTS

* Side quests are side quests for a reason: to get us away from the main story for a little while. Have less ones related to the main quest and more independent ones if possible.
**I need motivation to do sidequests. Most of them shouldn't be *completely* unrelated. See the Cerberus-related ones for ME1, there were about half a dozen of them. Worked very well.
* Less fetch quests, or more involved ones. For example, Rupert's ingredients quest would have been more involved and deeper if there were more things to get from it, such as perhaps getting quarian food for Tali from The Migrant Fleet or krogan chow from Tuchanka as well, etc.
* Sidequests should have more unique areas rather than have us trip over the items related to them as we go on our journey anyway. For example, the quest on Tuchanka for the krogan mechanic had us trip over what he needed on Mordin's loyalty quest. Same goes for the Salarian data and the missing trinkets on Illium. If we're going to get sidequests at least have them take more of an effort to do. Make us go off-world for them, or at least have to divert somewhere we wouldn't naturally go perhaps. Compare the aforementioned ones to the optional Zhu's Hope stuff that actually had you go to a separate area off the beaten path of the main quest.
* Locations: I'd like a mix of a few ME1 style UNC worlds, a few ME2 style N7 worlds and a few Overlord main hub style worlds. ME2 missed out on that feeling of lonely, desolate, unexplored vastness that had an impressive, quaint beauty to it that the UNC worlds gave us and this made the universe feel small and populated. N7 missions were better designed, but a little too much so, feeling over-designed, small and this made the universe in ME2 feel even smaller again. Overlord's area felt like a good blend of the two, but some areas still should feel more compact and others more empty, hence why a mix of all three would fit best, IMO. Having a mix would eliminate most of the issues each style had too, UNC planets not being so bad because there's less of them and more variety on the other worlds, and N7 style places not making the universe feel small since it has UNC ones to off-set that flaw.
YES!
* Presentation needs to improve from the N7 ones. See the remaining points in this section for examples:
* Shepard and companions should actually speak now and then, have some dialogue choices and even some moral choices.
* The stories need to be more interesting and rely less on gimmicks (though many of these gimmicks could work as part of bigger missions. Isolated they're gimmicky, but when part of something larger they'll work better).
* Less shooting nameless mercs and collecting datapads, more interesting characters who will speak, be they antagonists, victims, quest-givers, witnesses, etc.
* More proper set-ups and less emails and merely scanning random planets for anomalies. Bring back Hackett or some other Alliance or Council quest-giver, and even others who simply want help. More along the lines of Nassana Dantius, Helena Blake, Garoth, Admiral Kahoku, etc.
* Another quest or two related to Shepard's backgrounds please. Either related or unrelated to the ME1 ones.


All in all, a very good list. Bioware should read it!

I'd like to add this:

*Get rid of powers that have a fantasy-like feel to them, like Reave and Dominate.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 04 novembre 2010 - 01:31 .


#89
Zulu_DFA

Zulu_DFA
  • Members
  • 8 217 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...



*Get rid of powers that have a fantasy-like feel to them, like Reave and Dominate.


All powers in ME2 have a fantasy-like feel to them (except Zaeed's and Kasumi's grenades, really). Even some "heavy weapons".

#90
Getorex

Getorex
  • Members
  • 4 882 messages

Ieldra2 wrote...

Quite a long list. I agree with most. Extremely important points I agree with in green, Disagreements in red, commented ones in orange, comments in blue, everything else I agree with :

Terror_K wrote...

PRESENTATION

* Get back to the pseudo 80's sci-fi roots of ME1; less of the modern Hollywood approach of ME2.
**That needs clarification. I don't know which elements you consider parts of one or the other.
* Bring back larger areas if possible. Find a way to cheat it if need be if framerates can be an issue. Adding vehicle sections or things such as the Illium car chase in LotSB can help make places seem bigger for instance. Elevators couldn't hurt, so long as they weren't too slow. Transition cutscenes perhaps, where you may see Shepard walking and talking with somebody as the next area loads.

snip...

* Another quest or two related to Shepard's backgrounds please. Either related or unrelated to the ME1 ones.


All in all, a very good list. Bioware should read it!

I'd like to add this:

*Get rid of powers that have a fantasy-like feel to them, like Reave and Dominate.


Never dicked with Dominate so have no clue as to what it is. I always go with Reave (on my always soldier Shep). It is a damn powerful magic trick...but that's just it, I'd like to see a LOT less magic in general so would be down with gutting biotics in general (they are just magic in pseudoscientific clothing), but Reave (and without knowing what it is but trusting you Dominate) specifically.

As for bringing back crouch...yes and no. It depends on the AI of the enemy. If you can crouch (or take cover for that matter ala ME2) and simply forever avoid being killed/hit by the enemy, then no, don't bring back another cheat. Instead, make crouch MATTER (provides cover, but only temporarily) so that you can't simply crouch and that's it. The enemy should close with you and maneuver to defeat your crouch/cover.

The only things I found that would defeat cover in ME2, for instance, were mechs. The aliens and humans would forever stay away and married to their own cover but the mechs would march right up to the place where YOU were taking cover and fire over and down into you, defeating cover. If all enemies did something like this, it would make the fighting more dynamic and less subject to "cover camping" where you can take your sweet time picking off enemies at your leisure without fear of getting taken out.

Crouch mattered in Far Cry. It mattered in Crysis (both FPSs). The enemy would not detect you as quickly if you were sneaky/crouching and crawling towards them. There were times when you could actually totally bypass the enemy rather than engage in a fight. Crouch and cover were more organic and realistic in these games. I'd like to see something along those lines in ME3.

#91
Getorex

Getorex
  • Members
  • 4 882 messages

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...



*Get rid of powers that have a fantasy-like feel to them, like Reave and Dominate.


All powers in ME2 have a fantasy-like feel to them (except Zaeed's and Kasumi's grenades, really). Even some "heavy weapons".


Totally agree but...curious...which heavy weapon specifically do you refer to? I only ever use Arc Projector, never any of the others so I'm not really up on them.

#92
Xilizhra

Xilizhra
  • Members
  • 30 873 messages
I don't think that biotics have any problem as they are now... no need to gut them, I quite like them.

#93
Zulu_DFA

Zulu_DFA
  • Members
  • 8 217 messages
The Arc Projector it is. It allows you to cast the typical "Lightning Bolt" spell.



The "Frost Gun", "Gravity Gun" and "Nuke Gun" seem quite magical in essense too.

#94
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 676 messages
Reave and Dominate certainly have no place in the lore. Biotics are gravity/mass manipulation. Vampirism/mind control have no real place, or basis, as a use of biotics. Even Samara calls that sheer force of personality on Morinth's part.



Heavy-weapon wise, the Avalanche seems most out of place, all things considered. Icebergs on command.

#95
Getorex

Getorex
  • Members
  • 4 882 messages

Xilizhra wrote...

I don't think that biotics have any problem as they are now... no need to gut them, I quite like them.


My "complaint" is just that they are magicky. They are the same thing as magic in some goofy dungeons, armor, dragons, mages game. That's all.

I would eliminate Reave and, perhaps Dominate, though I am trusting others on its nature. All the other biotic powers should more properly be just more advanced forms of tech power because if you were to approach actually performing ANY of the biotic powers of 'reason', you would have to do so via tech. Some biotic powers require a lot more hand waving pseudoscience to explain/justify than others. They ALL require handwaving to justify their being organic to a person rather than a tech capability that a person carries.

Warp, throw, pull, slam are all variations of the same thing - manipulation of space-time. The only way to conceivably do that is via high power concentrated into a subatomic/atomic scale space ala a SUPER DUPER powered particle accelerator. Assume a high tech 23rd century then you can maybe claim that the tech is smaller/man portable rather than having to be miles in diameter and powered by huge transformers and capacitors. You get your magic without it actually looking/acting exactly like magic in other genres of RPG. You "justify" it with speculative science language rather than total handwaving pseudoscience. That's all. Reave cannot even be handwaved.

The tech powers as they stand are fine, except for drone. What's it made of? You just create a hologram and that somehow has power? (see what I mean?). Pain projection, no problem: see the "pain ray" being developed for the pentagon. Extrapolate from there. Overload is just an EMP without needing the large, clumsy hardware (man portable)...and so forth.

It's a preference of mine for a scifi RPG/story. I'd like to see scifi clearly delineated from fantasy. That's all really. Since that ain't gonna happen, the closest we can get to that is eliminate the biotic powers that just don't fit - they stand out as "other type of magic" (reave, dominate).

#96
Getorex

Getorex
  • Members
  • 4 882 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Reave and Dominate certainly have no place in the lore. Biotics are gravity/mass manipulation. Vampirism/mind control have no real place, or basis, as a use of biotics. Even Samara calls that sheer force of personality on Morinth's part.



Heavy-weapon wise, the Avalanche seems most out of place, all things considered. Icebergs on command.


Ah...OK...never use avalanche however...you COULD argue that it is merely firing bose-einstein condensate "bullets" at a target at high speed. The condensate is exceedingly cold so...wave hands and you have a freeze ray.

#97
Getorex

Getorex
  • Members
  • 4 882 messages

Zulu_DFA wrote...

The Arc Projector it is. It allows you to cast the typical "Lightning Bolt" spell.



The "Frost Gun", "Gravity Gun" and "Nuke Gun" seem quite magical in essense too.


Here's how I 'justify' the Arc Projector: look up "tetanizing laser". An actual patent being developed for police and armed forces. The AP takes it a bit out of whack but in essence:

tetanizing laser uses a dual UV laser beam and electrodes to project an electric current over a distance (arbitrary distance to a certain extent). The UV lasers, invisible, ionize a dual column of air towards your target through which and electric current can be transmitted. The patent calls for modulating the electric current so as to "freeze" the target (not stun, not kill). Using the right electric modulation you can cause all the skeletal muscles (not the diaphram and heart...too deep inside) to lock up. The target becomes immobile for as long as the laser is upon him/her.

It comes with an interesting variation - you CAN dial it up in power. In effect, create a star trek phaser that has settings like "freeze", "stun", or "kill". Stun would simply be dialing up the juice and altering the modulation so as to do exactly what a stun gun or taser does today. Pain AND muscle spasms to drop a person in their tracks. The kill option goes up with a higher power jolt of electricity and another change in modulation to stop breathing AND stop the heart (electrocution, basically).

That is how I see the Arc Projector (via some handwaving). If it were to be more in tune with the tetanizing laser on steroids, it would require you to point at each target in turn and fry them.

The nuker gun is crazy (and oddly only does damage to people - crates, buildings, etc, are untouched...is it a neutron bomb launcher?).

Modifié par Getorex, 04 novembre 2010 - 02:16 .


#98
Zulu_DFA

Zulu_DFA
  • Members
  • 8 217 messages
That explanation for the Arc Projector is pretty close to that BioWare give in the Codex. But how can it hit several targets if it's a lazer beam?



The problem is that they don't use their own Codex as guidelines for gameplay features anymore.



Somewhere at a point after ME1 was released the retarded "hi-tech is magic" mentality overtook at BioWare and here we are. ME2 is a fantasy in space, not a sci-fi.

#99
Jebel Krong

Jebel Krong
  • Members
  • 3 203 messages

Zulu_DFA wrote...

That explanation for the Arc Projector is pretty close to that BioWare give in the Codex. But how can it hit several targets if it's a lazer beam?

The problem is that they don't use their own Codex as guidelines for gameplay features anymore.

Somewhere at a point after ME1 was released the retarded "hi-tech is magic" mentality overtook at BioWare and here we are. ME2 is a fantasy in space, not a sci-fi.


god you are a tool: ever heard of wireless charging? :blink: i bet that's "magic" to you, too... or better yet,: lightning?!

the "nuke" gun is a euphemism as it doesn't work like a nuclear warhead anyway - read the codex it tells you as much, i don't remember a "gravity" gun in either game, but if you are referring to the singularity projector, singularities are quite well-known in science.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 04 novembre 2010 - 02:42 .


#100
Zulu_DFA

Zulu_DFA
  • Members
  • 8 217 messages
Dude, I'm here not saying that wireless charging is magic. I'm here saying that the "Arc Projector" in the game called ME2 feels a lot more like magic from a game set in a typical "elves&dragons" fantasy universe, than wireless charging or science from a science-fiction game.