342 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

nov_pl wrote...

Yes, early 2012 is most likely scenario, it also goes for E3 announcment.
I was actually expecting Mass 3 in late 2011, but then PS3 ver came up.

Well, for comparison's sake, the first teaser for ME2 along with the website redesign happened pretty much right on a year prior to ME2's release. If they use the same timeframe for ME3, we should either see something in the next couple of months or early in the new year.

And yeah, we still havn't DLC that'd make hudge impact on ME3, maybe apart from LotSB, but that doesn't affect the whole reaper situation that much.

The main thing LotSB probably does for ME3 is set up Liara as a likely candidate for being what The Council and TIM were for us in ME1 and ME2 respectively.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Early next year. I'm sure of it.

Modifié par FieryPhoenix7, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:01 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

PRESENTATION

* Get back to the pseudo 80's sci-fi roots of ME1; less of the modern Hollywood approach of ME2.
* 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.
* Bring back the more sensual yet tasteful love scenes of ME1 rather than the tacky, cheesy dry-humping stylings of ME2. They just make it look like despite winning the battle against Fox on every level that BioWare lost the war by just caving to nothing.

COMPANIONS

* 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.

NON-COMBAT GAMEPLAY

* 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.
* 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.

Okey, I deleted all from you quote what I mostly agree and leaved here to show what I don't agree. Easyer this way because most of what you sayed Terror_K I agree. Good job there.

I don't see reason why science fiction can't be done today standard, I don't want live in past. I actually liked more ME2 HUD. I'm agaist all love scenes, waste of developers time. Kotor companion banter wasn't good, DAO did it better. I'm not interested about companions talking, I want to ignore it. Armors may have better meaning, but this isn't best item win type of game, this is more about use right tools in right situations. I disagree you estimate about ME2 and relation to roleplaying. Real roleplayer would never even look paragon or renegade points, because they would have ZERO meaning for real roleplayer. ( metagaming )

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 novembre 2010 - 12:42 .

[lazuli]

Googlesaurus wrote...
It's pretty exploitable on Insanity as well. 

Perhaps, but making even tiny mistakes will lead to death on that difficulty level.  I don't think cover is as overpowered as you claim it is.  While you're safe, you're not killing.  Now you brought up a good point about "invicibility frames," but I think the best way to address this is with smarter enemies intent on pressuring the player as opposed to reworking the cover system.

[InfiniteCuts]

A little late in reading this thread, but excellent list of suggestions, Terror_K. I agree with pretty much everything you've stated, though it's probably no surprise as I'm a Mass Effect purist as well. I hope ME2 fans don't take these kind of suggestions as a belittling of their tastes... it's just that some compromise is needed after BioWare went too far in changing certain aspects of the game. We all know combat has improved overall in many ways (not completely, though)... but I hope we've also learned that combat is not the most important element in the Mass Effect universe, so it shouldn't get the imbalanced attention it did with ME2. Worst thing that can happen is for ME3 to turn out to be a game that ME fans don't recognize. They have to bring it full circle, while incorporating many of the technical merits of the sequel.

[Geralt of Relays]

I agree with most of what you've said Terror_K and would love to see what you've put down in ME3. Though what really irked me most about ME2 was not the technical stuff, it was the plot. Sadly, the damage has been done and that won't go away, it's part of the lore now.
 
I liked the opening of ME2 from a technical point of view, but killing Sheperd and then bringing him back is so cliché I don't even want to get into it much. It was a cheap way to reset things, at the very least some thought should have been put into it to be at least semi-original. He was drafted as a Spectre on the spot by the council and then let loose right away. It could have been wrote in he done special Spectre training after the battle of the Citadel and he specialised his skills. Could have been brought up in conversation with someone like Joker. "So Commander, what stuff did those guys teach you anyway?" etc.
 
On the Cerberus station at the start I was tapping my fingers waiting for the moment I put bullets through everyone's head, blew the station to kingdom com and got back to the Council to get this show back on the road. Instead, Cerberus was shoved down our throats and we couldn't get close to sticking two fingers up to them until the very end of the game. Cerberus would have made some sense for a Renegade Shep, a "results at all costs" Solider teaming up with a "results at all costs" organisation seems to fit. A Paragon Shep should have been brought back to life by another organisation, STG or something like that and working privately for the council.
 
Ultimately my point is, don't force things like that down our throat again especially when it doesn't make any plot sense. So in ME3 we better not end up being drawn in by the Blue Suns for example, it would be ridiculous. Just as much as working for Cerberus was given how they were in ME1. It showed no pre-planning was made at all for the major plot-lines for all 3 games. You can't pre-plan everything of course, adjustments have to be made dependant of internal/fan feedback etc. There is just no way to convince me that the whole Cerberus thing in ME2 was planned before ME1 was completed.
 
What annoyed me most was changing the game to mostly cater for people that didn't contribute to the success of ME1. I bought ME1, I purchased the pay DLC. If ME1 flopped, there wouldn't be an ME2 to make in the first place, so why was it changed so much to try and bring in another kind of gamer? (Money is the ultimate answer, but it's not like ME2 was going to flop given how well ME1 did.)
 
So as long as the plot & characters work in ME3 I'll live & work round the technical issues, just like I have in ME2 by doing the following:
 
BW broke lore with the clips thing, I use trainer for unlimited ammo - problem solved.
 
Resource gathering, I shouldn't have to do that so I use trainer to meet my needs - problem solved. (It's not that I'm against doing it as such, you read in the codex for planets for how "hard" it is exploiting planetary resources and then they bring this probe thing in and it's suddenly easy as pie! Another lore breaker.)
 
Universal cool-downs, breaking the mechanics of ME1, so I remove cooldowns with trainer - problem solved.
 
No it's not ideal to have to use a trainer to get around these things, but it's not like ME2 is going to be modified now, so might as well use it to reverse some of the ridiculous changes made.

[Cra5y Pineapple]

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

Oh god no...It was so cheesy.

[Googlesaurus]

lazuli wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...
It's pretty exploitable on Insanity as well. 

Perhaps, but making even tiny mistakes will lead to death on that difficulty level.  I don't think cover is as overpowered as you claim it is.  While you're safe, you're not killing.  Now you brought up a good point about "invicibility frames," but I think the best way to address this is with smarter enemies intent on pressuring the player as opposed to reworking the cover system.

The time period between losing your shields and losing health seems to be the same on all difficulty levels. Plus there is the whole dramatic sound effects and visual shimmer that alerts the players. Tiny mistakes can result in death for all games on their highest difficulty. The difference is what counts as a mistake. 

The cover system can't really be overpowered since all gameplay combat is designed around the concept; there's no other option to take unless you want to be piggish about playing. There are so many small things that contribute to this:

- The Scion's ability to hit you behind obstacles when you're not in cover (which makes no sense whatsoever). 
- The inability for any attack to hit you while cover is in-between you and the enemy. This includes things that should spill over with AOE damage like flamethrowers and the Colossus' main attack. Even Harbinger's slow attack only knocks you back when under cover, and you can easily avoid it altogether by moving back and forth.
- Enemy varrens' odd habit of getting stuck on corners and such if you are not in their direct line-of-sight.
- Level design that basically forces enemies to attack you head-on instead of possibly flanking. 

Etc. etc. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 07 novembre 2010 - 04:11 .

[ninja0809]

for ME3 i hope there would be more squad interaction. I hope my teamates would make random comments during missions, at least more frequently ><.



Also bring back the option to talk to teamates during missions plz

[-Skorpious-]

ninja0809 wrote...

for ME3 i hope there would be more squad interaction. I hope my teamates would make random comments during missions, at least more frequently >

Also bring back the option to talk to teamates during missions plz

Agreed x 1000. This flaw was a huge turnoff and one of the first things I noticed when first playing ME2.
The original 6 squadmates of ME felt more "alive" than their ME2 counter-parts (despite being about 2x as many of them).

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I don't see reason why science fiction can't be done today standard, I don't want live in past.

Because sci-fi was just so much better in that era. Sci-fi today is too overly gritty and edgy and tries to take itself too seriously with its overall mood and style, yet is also too easily willing to throw any sense aside for the sake of being cool and badass. ME1 really did come across as a great homage to great sci-fi of the past, which is what the devs actually said they were going for in the first place, be it the visual design, the music, the style and presentation, etc. The whole point was that it was both nostalgic and also knew... as if the spirit of great sci-fi was alive within it and as if it was a product of that time made with modern technology. ME2 was just too much like mainstream modern action-oriented BS. Not totally, but moreso than the first. The whole thing felt like it was appealing to the Michael Bay's Transformers and SGU generation rather than the Blade Runner and Babylon 5 generation.

Kotor companion banter wasn't good, DAO did it better. I'm not interested about companions talking, I want to ignore it.

Many fans want more talking and more interaction, feeling that ME2 was too much about action and shooting and combat and not enough about dialogue. Why should we suffer the loss of something just because you want it gone, especially when it's skippable and optional?

I disagree you estimate about ME2 and relation to roleplaying. Real roleplayer would never even look paragon or renegade points, because they would have ZERO meaning for real roleplayer. ( metagaming )

Yet as it stands real roleplayers are screwed because they need to have a high enough Paragon or Renegade meter in order to make certain responses. They can't invest in a skill to attain them, they have to have done a lot of Charming or Intimidating in the past, meaning to really be a success one has to greatly favour on or the other. What's the point in there being so many variations when at the end of ME2 90% of people are going to have save games where they  made all the paragon choices or all the renegade ones with little differing between? That's not roleplaying: that's forcing you to choose one way or the other if you want to be able to make the hard choices successful.

[Lumikki]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

I don't see reason why science fiction can't be done today standard, I don't want live in past.[/quote]

Because sci-fi was just so much better in that era. Sci-fi today is too overly gritty and edgy and tries to take itself too seriously with its overall mood and style, yet is also too easily willing to throw any sense aside for the sake of being cool and badass. ME1 really did come across as a great homage to great sci-fi of the past, which is what the devs actually said they were going for in the first place, be it the visual design, the music, the style and presentation, etc. The whole point was that it was both nostalgic and also knew... as if the spirit of great sci-fi was alive within it and as if it was a product of that time made with modern technology. ME2 was just too much like mainstream modern action-oriented BS. Not totally, but moreso than the first. The whole thing felt like it was appealing to the Michael Bay's Transformers and SGU generation rather than the Blade Runner and Babylon 5 generation.[/quote][/quote]
I disagree. I think modern scifi has just more actions, because todays technology allows it to happen easyer. Don't use Michael Bay's as excuse, there is a lot of good scifi movies too. Like The Fifth Element, Matrix serie, Fountain, Iron man serie, The Butterfly Effect, eXistenZ, Constantine, Terminator serie, Equilibrium, Minority report,  Resident Evil serie, Soldier, V-serie, X-men serie, Wing Commander, The Chronicles of Riddick, Avatar, Watchmen, G.I. Joe and so on.. Okey maybe all not so good depending what everyone likes, but don't think at the moment that they still doesn't do good scifi movies in today. I could say that if you like just 80's scifi, that's more personal taste than what we all like in scifi.

[quote]Many fans want more talking and more interaction, feeling that ME2 was too much about action and shooting and combat and not enough about dialogue. Why should we suffer the loss of something just because you want it gone, especially when it's skippable and optional?[/quote]
I agree what you say, but like you sayed, just because others like, doesn't mean I have to like it. But like you and I sayed, I want to skip it and that opition should be there.

[quote][quote]
I disagree you estimate about ME2 and relation to roleplaying. Real roleplayer would never even look paragon or renegade points, because they would have ZERO meaning for real roleplayer. ( metagaming )
[/quote]

Yet as it stands real roleplayers are screwed because they need to have a high enough Paragon or Renegade meter in order to make certain responses. They can't invest in a skill to attain them, they have to have done a lot of Charming or Intimidating in the past, meaning to really be a success one has to greatly favour on or the other. What's the point in there being so many variations when at the end of ME2 90% of people are going to have save games where they  made all the paragon choices or all the renegade ones with little differing between? That's not roleplaying: that's forcing you to choose one way or the other if you want to be able to make the hard choices successful.[/quote]
We have bigger disagreement here Terror_K or we talk same stuff, but with different view points.

When roleplayer takes role, it means player doesn't change they roleplaying because game system advances or disadvances. There is no game system for real roleplayer, just role to play. Real roleplayer never step out of role, because game system has something. Basicly means you complain about paragon or renegade point system, you are not real roleplayer, you are metaplayer.

If you really want to complain roleplaying possibilities, then only thing what you could complain is dialog system  as not offering enough choises. How ever, paragon or renegade point system has ZERO thing to do with real roleplaying. If you feel ME2 system doesn't allow you play the role, then it's in dialog choises, not in paragon/renegade system. They are two different thing, connected but seperated.

What you talk is metagaming as player change they roles because game system benefits or disadvances. Metagaming is more like something between roleplaying and powerplaying. Metaplayer is roleplayer who change they behavior based advances they get from system. Metagaming is consider as bad roleplaying. Powerplayer is only after advances and don't care roleplaying. Real roleplayer never step out of role of character because some external reasons.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 novembre 2010 - 10:12 .

[Lunatic LK47]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...
I disagree. I think modern scifi has just more actions, because todays technology allows it to happen easyer. Don't use Michael Bay's as excuse, there is a lot of good scifi movies too.

[quote]Like The Fifth Element[/quote]
While Fifth Element was entertaining, it felt like it was just run of the mill, with CGI thrown in.

[quote]Matrix serie[/quote]

A CGI fest film that had a very convoluted and border-line nonsensical plot. The only reason anyone would watch the Matrix is because of the stylistic action scenes.

[quote]Iron man series[/quote]

Super-hero movies are based on comic books. It's not fair to say it's science-fiction.

[quote]Constantine[/quote]

Not science-fiction.

[quote]Terminator series[/quote]

Terminator 1 and 2 are the only good ones. 3 and Salvation were better off not existing, period.

[quote]Equilibrium[/quote]

Only reason it's worth seeing is just because of the "Gun Kata", and that's it.

[quote]Minority report[/quote]

Oooh, sci-fi pseudo-film noir movie, could have been better overall.

[quote] Resident Evil series[/quote]

Don't you dare say this is a good film series. It ****ing isn't, not to mention it's too far from the games.

[quote]Soldier[/quote]

Paul Anderson, 'nuff said. It hasn't been captivating. The only decent work Anderson did was Mortal Kombat 1, and that's not saying much.

[quote]X-men series[/quote]

X-Men franchise was never meant to be a movie from the get-go, considering the ****ing large roster, the mutants had God-level powers (up to the point that technological limitations can't accurately portray powers like the comics.)and there's no way to do the universe in a 90 minute movie.

[quote]Wing Commander[/quote]

Uh, I'm getting the feeling that was pulled out of your ass. It's a 1990's movie that bastardized the video games.

[quote] The Chronicles of Riddick[/quote]

Pitch Black was better than the Chronicles series.

[quote] Avatar[/quote]

Oh, gee, Jim went the route of George Lucas and just did a future-sci-fi take of Dances with Wolves, nothing much here.

[quote]Watchmen[/quote]

Not a science fiction movie.

[quote]G.I. Joe[/quote]

Not a science fiction movie.

[Lumikki]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
*snip*

You list movies and I will tell how bad they all are. Because liking movies is taste, not facts. That was my point, liking 80's scifi is just taste, doesn't make it better for everyone else, it's personal taste.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 novembre 2010 - 10:40 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Lumikki wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
*snip*

You list movies and I will tell how bad they all are. Because liking movies is taste, not facts. That was my point, liking 80's scifi is just taste, doesn't make it better for everyone else, it's personal taste.

Uh, I mentioned some of the movies don't fit the science fiction genre, and I can agree to disagree regarding the qualities of the movies you mentioned.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
*snip*

You list movies and I will tell how bad they all are. Because liking movies is taste, not facts. That was my point, liking 80's scifi is just taste, doesn't make it better for everyone else, it's personal taste.

Taste or not, ME1 was going for something originally that ME2 seemed to want to change up, albeit not fully to the point of being a complete reboot. So taste in style aside, said style shouldn't suddenly change part the way through the trilogy. The entire Mass Effect trilogy should be going for the same type of feel throughout. I got into Mass Effect and saw it as more than just a game because it appealed to me in a "Finally! Some good new sci-fi!" kind of way. Then the sequel comes along and decides to try and become more like everything else out there today. It reminded me of the difference between Stargate SG1 + Atlantis and the terrible, more modern SGU which seems to have sucked the fun out of the franchise to appeal to the mainstream with this still gritty and edgy overseriousness and shallow, cliched characters who are all emo, uninteresting stereotypes. ME2 didn't go the full gamut, but it certainly steered more in that direction than its predecessor ever was.

[Homebound]

My idea of a Perfect ME3...A ME3 that is independent of the past and present. Instead of using something that worked before or something thats working now, how about something completely new and different? That is what a Perfect ME3 is to me. Something innovative.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
*snip*

You list movies and I will tell how bad they all are. Because liking movies is taste, not facts. That was my point, liking 80's scifi is just taste, doesn't make it better for everyone else, it's personal taste.

Taste or not, ME1 was going for something originally that ME2 seemed to want to change up, albeit not fully to the point of being a complete reboot. So taste in style aside, said style shouldn't suddenly change part the way through the trilogy. The entire Mass Effect trilogy should be going for the same type of feel throughout. I got into Mass Effect and saw it as more than just a game because it appealed to me in a "Finally! Some good new sci-fi!" kind of way. Then the sequel comes along and decides to try and become more like everything else out there today. It reminded me of the difference between Stargate SG1 + Atlantis and the terrible, more modern SGU which seems to have sucked the fun out of the franchise to appeal to the mainstream with this still gritty and edgy overseriousness and shallow, cliched characters who are all emo, uninteresting stereotypes. ME2 didn't go the full gamut, but it certainly steered more in that direction than its predecessor ever was.

Not much to say, I just disagree with you. In my opinion you see situation way too black and white. You are like stuck in past as what ME1 is and can't get out of it. Also you seem to deside it's not good scifi because it has too much action. Like ME2 has more combat feel, because some design details.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 novembre 2010 - 11:36 .

[Homebound]

I see people are more interested in preconceptions instead of progression....

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Not much to say, I just disagree with you. In my opinion you see situation way too black and white. Also you seem to deside it's not good scifi because it has too much action. Like ME2 has more combat feel, because some design details.

It's not about the content so much as how it's presented and put across. Action works very well when done well and when it feels it has a purpose other than simply to be there. There have been plenty of good action-oriented sci-fi's, because the good ones know how to use it well and incorporate it into the narrative, as well as not focussing on it too much merely for the sake of action. ME2 is still good sci-fi for the most part, but its tone and style tended to edge away from what it originally started as. ME2 preferred style and being modern and gritty over substance, and that's why it wasn't as good or consistent. It reminded me of J.J. Abrams Star Trek in a way: changing it up to appeal more to today's mainstream audience of teenagers and young twenty-somethings rather than the original fanbase.

Just_mike wrote...

I see people are more interested in preconceptions instead of progression....

ME2 certainly wasn't "progression" in any real way, at least not gameplay wise. More like "regression" if anything. I'm all for innovation and progression where it fits, but innovation and progression isn't the same as oversimpifying and dumbing down and it certainly doesn't cover changing the style of game to suit the masses and making it like every other game out there. The only reason people call ME2 innovative is because their definition of the work "innovative" is "make it more to suit me." Sticking to its roots isn't innovative either, but I don't believe that every game out there needs to be incredibly genre-shattering. Only shallow people with ADD and the pretentious media really think that. And that said, the media still continue to lick the boots of the likes of Bungie and Activision for shoving the same out crap year after year. People claim to want innovation, but will still buy the next Call of Duty in droves even though the last one did jack squat for the genre.

Modifié par Terror_K, 07 novembre 2010 - 11:42 .

[Kronner]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 certainly wasn't "progression" in any real way, at least not gameplay wise. More like "regression" if anything.

lol yeah sure, tell me the other fairy-tale too

[ashwind]

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 certainly wasn't "progression" in any real way, at least not gameplay wise. More like "regression" if anything.

I'm all for innovation and progression where it fits, but innovation and progression isn't the same as oversimpifying and dumbing down and it certainly doesn't cover changing the style of game to suit the masses and making it like every other game out there.

The only reason people call ME2 innovative is because their definition of the work "innovative" is "make it more to suit me."

Sticking to its roots isn't innovative either - People claim to want innovation, but will still buy the next Call of Duty in droves even though the last one did jack squat for the genre.

~Puts on Elcor Mask~
Confused. What you are saying is
1 ) Call of Duty - game do not change hence not innovative.

2 ) People who like the changes and find the changes to their liking calls these changes "innovation".

3 ) People who do not like the changes may perceive them as oversimplifying/dumbing down; or maybe over complicating things.

Conclusion. The meaning of "innovation" changes from human to human based on individual preference. When one human likes a certain change, it is labeled "innovation" otherwise it is labeled "dumbing down", "oversimplifying", etc. 

Extremely confused. Why are you arguing with yourself?

 sry - cant help it

[Lumikki]

ashwind wrote...

Conclusion. The meaning of "innovation" changes from human to human based on individual preference. When one human likes a certain change, it is labeled "innovation" otherwise it is labeled "dumbing down", "oversimplifying", etc.

Hehe, I actualy agree with this one, little bit. This is how it often happens. It's about does person like the direction where something goes. Persons reaction is based did they like it or not.

How ever, ME2 did simplify alot of stuff, but it also did take some features in different direction, not just simplifyed. Also simplifying or new direction  isn't allways bad thing, it can also be good thing. I agree with Terror_K that ME2 over did some stuff, mostly limiting customation way too much.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 novembre 2010 - 01:32 .

[lazuli]

Googlesaurus wrote...
The time period between losing your shields and losing health seems to be the same on all difficulty levels. Plus there is the whole dramatic sound effects and visual shimmer that alerts the players. Tiny mistakes can result in death for all games on their highest difficulty. The difference is what counts as a mistake. 

Oh so that's what you meant by "invincibility frames."  I misunderstood.

The cover system can't really be overpowered since all gameplay combat is designed around the concept; there's no other option to take unless you want to be piggish about playing. There are so many small things that contribute to this:

- The Scion's ability to hit you behind obstacles when you're not in cover (which makes no sense whatsoever). 
- The inability for any attack to hit you while cover is in-between you and the enemy. This includes things that should spill over with AOE damage like flamethrowers and the Colossus' main attack. Even Harbinger's slow attack only knocks you back when under cover, and you can easily avoid it altogether by moving back and forth.
- Enemy varrens' odd habit of getting stuck on corners and such if you are not in their direct line-of-sight.
- Level design that basically forces enemies to attack you head-on instead of possibly flanking. 

Etc. etc. 

These are all good points.  One minor correction I would suggest is that certain attacks do spill over and hit you when you're on cover, though typically when you're on tall cover and the enemy is at just the right angle.  Additionally, if you and a squadmate are adjacent to one another on cover and the squadmate stands up to shoot and is hit by an area effect attack (that cover would normally block), it will strike you as well.

So would you propose that enemies are given more ways to deal with players in cover, like more AOE splash attacks, more open level design, improved AI, etc?  I don't think we disagree here.

[Googlesaurus]

lazuli wrote...

These are all good points.  One minor correction I would suggest is that certain attacks do spill over and hit you when you're on cover, though typically when you're on tall cover and the enemy is at just the right angle.  Additionally, if you and a squadmate are adjacent to one another on cover and the squadmate stands up to shoot and is hit by an area effect attack (that cover would normally block), it will strike you as well.

So would you propose that enemies are given more ways to deal with players in cover, like more AOE splash attacks, more open level design, improved AI, etc?  I don't think we disagree here.

True, but even on Insanity a direct hit/splash damage from denotation will never completely take down your shields. 

Not just making it harder to use cover, but making it a better option in certain situations to fight in the open against ranged opponents. I wish they would bring back upgrades like Kinetic Exoskeleton to make mobile combat a more attractive option. As it stands there is little opportunity to use the environment to block shots without literally hiding behind something. Even FPS games as far back as Halo:CE had this down as well as stealth combat.