342 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

What I consider as Mass Effects most important feature is cinematic impression gameplay. Where player is taking role of Shepard and allmost feel as been this movie like scifi world. So, it's more about impression, than simple game. I ques it could be called of simulation too. Meaning I don't want to see arcade shooting game, I want to see flight simulation game. It's style difference, where the reality impression has bigger meaning, than just try to entertain player with new toy.

Now one thing what I think Mass Effect really miss is exploration. In both Mass Effects I got feeling like I did not need to search anything from the world, at least what would matter, just follow given missions and I'm on some predefine path from start to end. If we really fight agaist advance race like reapers, I woud assume that finding new advance technology could play bigger role.

Also I would like more variety for gameplay. Too much same gameplay doesn't ever feel so good. Even if the variety is just short time, it does make big difference. Of cause I can understand that it's not really business wise to create short gameplay what cost alot of make. How ever, that variety is often what makes game better. Example short flight in experimental spacecraft or dive in some planets ocean. Variety in enviroment and variety in what player is doing. Most worst thing developers can do is using same stuff in many places. Like what happen in ME1 planet explorations as buildings where mostly same in every planet.

I look back games like Kotor. I think most interesting was the different enviroments in planets. I really liked places like Manaa, Kashyyk and even Taris. It's about feeling as new wonders, somehting to look at as this is different. Not about been in empty desert or be in some dark corridors. More like in movie of Avatar, even if story was bad, but the enviroment as places to look, that was really wonders. I want in ME3 visit exotic places, where I can find some totally alien technology, what could be used agaist reapers. Not just one special place, but exploration of galaxy.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 novembre 2010 - 01:28 .

[ScooterPie88]

I disagree about it being oversimplified. Streamlined sure (for the better in my opinion). Honestly I find ME2 to have just as much depth as the first one. That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

[Googlesaurus]

Admit it, the club music rocked.

[ScooterPie88]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Admit it, the club music rocked.

I couldn't remain silent after that.  Totally agree.  As a good friend of mine said, "I'm just going to sit in Club Afterlife all day."

[Lunatic LK47]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...

Admit it, the club music rocked.

I couldn't remain silent after that.  Totally agree.  As a good friend of mine said, "I'm just going to sit in Club Afterlife all day."

There's also Eternity as well. Such a great place if you're itching for making love.

[Terror_K]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I disagree about it being oversimplified. Streamlined sure (for the better in my opinion). Honestly I find ME2 to have just as much depth as the first one. That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

It wasn't streamlined at all. If it were streamlined it would still retain the functionality of ME1. It doesn't... it removes and oversimplifies far too much. Skills have been more than halved, customisation and modding are gone, as are omni-tools and biotic amps. Too much of the game is set on autopilot and too much has been removed. We've moved from a technical manual to "Baby's First RPG: On Tape" instead.

And I honestly can't fathom how people can actually like meaningful customisation and choice taken away from them and having everything put on the rails.

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

[It wasn't streamlined at all. If it were streamlined it would still retain the functionality of ME1. It doesn't... it removes and oversimplifies far too much. Skills have been more than halved, customisation and modding are gone, as are omni-tools and biotic amps. Too much of the game is set on autopilot and too much has been removed. We've moved from a technical manual to "Baby's First RPG: On Tape" instead.

Terror, ever wonder why most people don't know much about western RPGs? Simple. The system is too ****ing time consuming and too compliated to learn everything or even play the game properly. RPGs for the "average gamer" is the equivalent of expecting an a five-year old to understand physics. Unless you're the type of person willing to spend half a day reading the technical manuals just to comprehend it, no one is ever going to give it a shot. Hell, I was even turned off by other Western RPGs like the Summoner because of a problem like this. KOTOR on the other hand was a different story, and it didn't require me to intimately know about Dungeons and Dragons just to play the game properly.

And I honestly can't fathom how people can actually like meaningful customisation and choice taken away from them and having everything put on the rails.

Thing is some of the customization items are outright worthless. One perfect example I can think of is Alpha Protocol, where most of the mods go somewhere along the lines of "You'll be good with A, but suck badly with B, C, and D." The mods I only bother exploring is "You'll be good with A only, but won't suck with other categories" or "You'll be good at A, B and C at the cost of D." The way I approach item customization is like buying something to drink: Which one are you more likely to get: Bottled water, A can of soda, or a bottle of an alcoholic drink? A normal person will always take the Bottled water or can of soda any time of the day if he/she has to drive a vehicle.  In the case of Mass Effect: I can name the following mod items that are outright worthless:

Energized Plating
Stimulant Pack
Radioactive Rounds
Phasic/Proton Rounds
High Explosive Rounds
Armor-piercing/Tungsten Rounds
Anti-personnel/Shredder Rounds
Ablative Coating
Hardened Weave
Shock Absorbers
Shield Battery/Interface/Modulator/Regenerator
Toxic Seals
Snowblind Rounds
Hammerhead rounds

12 out of 15 armor mods useless, 9 out of 16 ammo mods useless. And you're promoting "options" that have useless attributes? Don't know how to exactly change them to be less useless.

[RiouHotaru]

Terror_K wrote...

ScooterPie88 wrote...

I disagree about it being oversimplified. Streamlined sure (for the better in my opinion). Honestly I find ME2 to have just as much depth as the first one. That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

It wasn't streamlined at all. If it were streamlined it would still retain the functionality of ME1. It doesn't... it removes and oversimplifies far too much. Skills have been more than halved, customisation and modding are gone, as are omni-tools and biotic amps. Too much of the game is set on autopilot and too much has been removed. We've moved from a technical manual to "Baby's First RPG: On Tape" instead.

And I honestly can't fathom how people can actually like meaningful customisation and choice taken away from them and having everything put on the rails.

The problem is, that ME1 had too MANY options, most of which were functionally useless or had a strictly superior upgrade available almost instantly.  I'll go over what you mentioned specifically:

Skills: Functionally, only about half (and that's being generous) the skills were useful.  Also, each rank increase produced only a miniscule improvement in performance, a difference of which was only noticeable at high levels (example: the difference between Rank 1 and 2 is practically non-existant, the difference between 1 nd 10 IS noticeable).  Also, several skills were basically outright Gamebreakers, even for the Insanity difficulty (I'm looking at YOU, Marksman and Immunity!)  Also, a lot of the skills gave synergy (Tech skills!) to each other, but were themselves not incredibly useful.

Worse so was the cooldowns.  With each power having it's own cooldown, you were encouraged to simply spam your enemies with everything you had and the kitchen sink (hell the AI does the exact same thing!) and then gun them down while waiting for a recharge.  On harder difficulties enemies became bullet sponges which you could keep pinned in a corner for over 5 minutes before they died.

ME2 fixed that by lower the number of skills to ones that were immediately useful in almost all situations, and made the differences in each skill rank significant, so the boost in power per Rank felt like a true upgrade.  Also, using Global Cooldowns encouraged more strategic use over spamming, but made overall cooldowns shorter to encourage their use.

Customization/Modding:  As stated above, the problem was that many of the mods were functionally useless (Combat Exoskeletion, Combat Optics, etc,) or had 2nd/3rd tier upgrades which rendered their next-of kin as junk.  The purchaseable upgrades fixed this, and for the ammo types, we had ammo powers as a functional, more useful replacement.  Of equal note, the weapon customization?  Functionally useless.  While some stats for the ME2 weapons would've been a little nicer, the differences between weapons is easily apparent.

The Omni-tools/biotic amps falls under the same problem as both customization and skills.  It offered nothing functionally useful until high levels, and even then...

Streamlining the system was possibly the best thing they could've done.

[Terror_K]

I simply disagree with both of you entirely. There's nothing much more to say: your views are just so different and opposite from mine. I don't agree that WRPGs are overly complicated, and if you do believe that as far as I'm concerned you're playing the wrong type of game. I also don't believe most of those mods were useless either. Also, halving the amount of skills also halves the amount of builds. What's the point in even having classes when there's only a couple of ways to build them. How about we just dumb things down even further and just let you choose your class and then let everything automatically upgrade and level-up for you. That seems to be what you're encouraging with these type of attitudes.



So wonder we keep getting shallow, oversimplified garbage with those attitudes and feelings. I also love how "the way ME1 did it was pants, so that's the end of that!" rather than the idea that maybe there's a way of doing it that's... y'know... BETTER, while still maintaining the essence of RPG customisation.

[RiouHotaru]

Terror_K wrote...

I simply disagree with both of you entirely. There's nothing much more to say: your views are just so different and opposite from mine. I don't agree that WRPGs are overly complicated, and if you do believe that as far as I'm concerned you're playing the wrong type of game. I also don't believe most of those mods were useless either. Also, halving the amount of skills also halves the amount of builds. What's the point in even having classes when there's only a couple of ways to build them. How about we just dumb things down even further and just let you choose your class and then let everything automatically upgrade and level-up for you. That seems to be what you're encouraging with these type of attitudes.

So wonder we keep getting shallow, oversimplified garbage with those attitudes and feelings. I also love how "the way ME1 did it was pants, so that's the end of that!" rather than the idea that maybe there's a way of doing it that's... y'know... BETTER, while still maintaining the essence of RPG customisation.

I'm not saying that because ME1 was crap every part of it was crap.  But I consider ME2 the "improvement" that you say you're looking for.

Also, just having a lot of skills didn't change your build.  Check out he ME Wiki and do a search on 'Gold Standard Builds'.  You'll notice that outside of maybe 1 or 2 differences in skill choice, builds between different classes were not different at all.  Most of the same skills were raised to the same level in each build.

ME2 didn't change that.  Less skills, lower level cap (30 rather than 60) meant that builds would likely be similar too...which they are.  For the most part, the greatest variation between builds of a certain class is the choice of bonus skill.  Otherwise, just like ME1, builds are functionally similar.

...Also, there is an option when leveling up in ME1 and 2 to let the computer decide how to allocate your skill points.  So you could let the game decide, if you felt like it.

[Lunatic LK47]

Terror_K wrote...

I simply disagree with both of you entirely. There's nothing much more to say: your views are just so different and opposite from mine. I don't agree that WRPGs are overly complicated

Uh, they are if you don't know that the hell you're doing, and the games I listed was made in ****ing 2000.  

and if you do believe that as far as I'm concerned you're playing the wrong type of game.

Let me rephrase this in my previous post: I hated the *TRADITIONAL ONES* because they are overcomplicated. KOTOR was just easier for me to get into.

I also don't believe most of those mods were useless either.

Uh, mods that say "You'll be good in Category A at the cost of B, C, and D" is considered useless to me.

Also, halving the amount of skills also halves the amount of builds

Uh, newflash, half of our skills are not accessible unless we spent points leveling up the skills we don't want (i.e. "U must spend points in Warp to get Singularity," or my personal favorites "U must spend points in Assault Rifle to unlock Sniper Rifle training" "U must spend points in pistols to level up Shotguns").

What's the point in even having classes when there's only a couple of ways to build them. How about we just dumb things down even further and just let you choose your class and then let everything automatically upgrade and level-up for you. That seems to be what you're encouraging with these type of attitudes.

What's the point of giving us certain classes if there's only one good path of leveling them up (I already build my soldiers and Infiltrators a specific way that I never bothered looking back anymore)? That makes the point of choices moot.

So wonder we keep getting shallow, oversimplified garbage with those attitudes and feelings. I also love how "the way ME1 did it was pants, so that's the end of that!" rather than the idea that maybe there's a way of doing it that's... y'know... BETTER, while still maintaining the essence of RPG customisation.

If Mass Effect 1 was done from the point of the average Joe Marine, I probably wouldn't have minded the mechanics, but adding the "weapon skill point" aspect was just non-sensical since we're playing a Special Forces Marine. Real life-logic: Special Forces personnel spend literally hundreds of hours in the firing range or going through Close Quarters Battle training up to the point that firing their weapons accurately is second nature.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 11 novembre 2010 - 11:04 .

[SimonTheFrog]

@ RiouHotaru: sorry but I'm not convinced. It may be right that ME1 was thusly balanced that many options were inferior to others. And that indeed there are builds for each class that are more efficient than others.

But i clearly think it's wrong to take this as evidence that only the most efficient build is acceptable and "fun" and must be kept for ME2 and all others must be trashed.



I think the right decision would have been to tweak the offered variety so that more options make sense! And not just throw away everything that wasn't powerful enough.



I enjoy playing outside the class-mold a lot. In ME1 it didn't quite work, but it would have been awesome to mod your engineer so that she can melee most of the enemies. Or create a poisonous ****, create an all-biotic who never touches a gun or specialize on making the enemies go blind, slow, impaired and weakened while your squaddies take them out. You know, play with the system the game offers. Create new tactics, think outside the box.



As i said, it didn't quite work in ME1 but in ME2 we have moved away from that even more. Now all you can do is pick a class and play it. Like COD multiplayer. Hooray for RPG.



And on top of that in ME2 there are still tons of useless mods and powers. *sigh*

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I simply disagree with both of you entirely. There's nothing much more to say: your views are just so different and opposite from mine. I don't agree that WRPGs are overly complicated, and if you do believe that as far as I'm concerned you're playing the wrong type of game. I also don't believe most of those mods were useless either. Also, halving the amount of skills also halves the amount of builds. What's the point in even having classes when there's only a couple of ways to build them. How about we just dumb things down even further and just let you choose your class and then let everything automatically upgrade and level-up for you. That seems to be what you're encouraging with these type of attitudes.

So wonder we keep getting shallow, oversimplified garbage with those attitudes and feelings. I also love how "the way ME1 did it was pants, so that's the end of that!" rather than the idea that maybe there's a way of doing it that's... y'know... BETTER, while still maintaining the essence of RPG customisation.

Maybe you now start to understand that what you want isn't same as what some others want?

I want more customation, but I don't want illusion of customation, like ME1 had. ME1 was full useless stuff what had no real meaning. I agree with You Terror_K that some customation features should be back, like ability modify armors and weapons more induvidual base and meaningfull ways. I even agree that little more skills (powers) could be good thing. How ever, remember not everyone likes some complex RPG style what you try to push here. Even I'm agaist it, because it doesn't necassary make Mass Effect better. Mostly because Mass Effect's focus is more in cinematic impression as fluid movie like gameplay, not about alot of customation screens as puting points to something what just breaks the impression. I have nothing agaist game to be more complex, if it makes game better, but most the time it doesn't do that. I think variety in gameplay is more important than complexity in customation.

How we gonna try to find "best for ME3" for everyone, if our opinions what is best for ME3 is too far from each other?

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 novembre 2010 - 03:34 .

[cachx]

Why gamers need to wise up and realize that "Streamlined" does not mean "dumbed down".

I think we should stop throwing fits whenever someone announced that something got "streamlined". In the case of skills systems of ME1, the change was very positive, the superflous stuff was removed and the game benefited from it a lot.
Clinging on our own little (old)  ways of what a genre is "supposed to be" is getting in the way of experimentation and advancement.

[SimonTheFrog]

cachx wrote...

Why gamers need to wise up and realize that "Streamlined" does not mean "dumbed down".

I think we should stop throwing fits whenever someone announced that something got "streamlined". In the case of skills systems of ME1, the change was very positive, the superflous stuff was removed and the game benefited from it a lot.
Clinging on our own little (old)  ways of what a genre is "supposed to be" is getting in the way of experimentation and advancement.

I haven't read the article yet, but what you say underneath is very one-sided. Also, you are assuming that people "cling" to old gameplay mechanics for the sake of it. But if you read the posts in this thread (and others on this topic) you should see that there are a lot of very valid points.

I don't think a lot of people are against experimentation and advancement per se. Not even against streamlining, but against reduced tactical options and against reduced possibilities to fight the battles in a manner you see fit instead of just picking a pre-assembled class. 

Also, a lot of people agree that ME1 did stuff wrong here. So, a lot of people are very open to improvements... but ME2 being the only way that improvement could have been... now there's something i doubt.

[Lord Nicholai]

Terror_K wrote...

It wasn't streamlined at all. If it were streamlined it would still retain the functionality of ME1. It doesn't... it removes and oversimplifies far too much. Skills have been more than halved, customisation and modding are gone, as are omni-tools and biotic amps. Too much of the game is set on autopilot and too much has been removed. We've moved from a technical manual to "Baby's First RPG: On Tape" instead.

And I honestly can't fathom how people can actually like meaningful customisation and choice taken away from them and having everything put on the rails.

Eh? ME2 customisation is not 'on the rails' unless you choose to use the auto level up (which was in ME1 too anyway). ME2 got rid of useless bits from ME1; the weapons training skills were a waste of time, as were the armour, charm, intimidate, and first aid skills.

I don't know about you, but when Mass Effect was first announced I was looking foward to an amazing cinematic experience with great story and characters, not scrolling through menus breaking down items and attaching mod #134 to a weapon #654 every 10 minutes. ME is not supposed to be the spreadsheet RPG that you are pining for

[ScooterPie88]

Okay we get it Terror you don't like ME2. Not only have you beat a dead horse, you've ground it up sent it the knackers and had it turned into glue. Everytime someone brings up a good counter arguement you just pile crap on top of crap on top of crap on top crap. That's not arguing that's being contrary. I say A so you say B. I say B so you say C. That is just useless and gets nothing done.

[Lunatic LK47]

Nicholai, you are my idol.

[Terror_K]

@Lord Nicholai: I don't want a spreadsheet RPG in Mass Effect, I've made that abundantly clear loads of times. My original post should make that pretty damn clear. I don't want them to give us base stats like Strength, Dex, Constitution, etc. because that would be pointless, as would non-combat skills like Swim and Athletics, etc. But nor do I want Mass Effect to simply be a cinematic shooter with no meaningful RPG mechanics like ME2 was. I want mods and more weapons back, but I don't want there to be ten versions of each one, because that's overboard and annoying. I like ME2's scan+replication system that means once you have one thing, you don't need to find any more, and I like that there's only one version of each item. I'm glad we don't have to omni-gel everything and bother with that stuff any more. But I don't like an upgrade and research system that is set on automatic and God-mods everything too easily with no trade offs and has eliminated proper weapon and armour modding as well as omni-tools and biotic amps. The slimmed down skills have reduced us to combat-only abilities. I don't think weapon skills should come back, but things like armour, decryption and hacking had their places. And a persuasion skill of some kind needs to come back, because ME2's method is incredibly broken with it's whole "self-feeding alignment" method that discourages proper roleplaying entirely, preferably with a single skill that can feed both.



@ScooterPie88: You exaggerate and twist things there. Every time I've brought up points against ME2 I've given a damn good reason for it. The only reasons those who counter my arguments seem to be able to fall back on are how it didn't work in ME1. That's not a good counter argument, that's just counter-productive. I'm only trying to encourage the return of the essence of what ME1 gave us, not the whole thing. I don't find oversimplistic gameplay designed so a monkey could play it satisfying in any way, and I've asked numerous times things such as "how is falling back on old TPS mechanics innovation or progression?" and "ME2 only has less gameplay mechanics issues because it's so watered down it's almost devoid of enough moving parts to break down" and have yet to get any proper answers or counter-arguments from ME2's defenders. It's always just the same thing: "ME1 was overly complicated" and "I don't like things getting in the way of me killing things!" Seriously... what's so satisfying and good about an on-the-rails upgrade system that doesn't really let you have any real customisation or choice at all? Everybody knocks the Master Spectre gear for being too good and breaking the game, yet this is even worse and people think it's okay.



I just don't see at all how anybody can be satisfied with ME2's way of going about things and actually think it's a step forward and still claim to be RPG fans. I can see why they'd find it less flawed and cumbersome and easier to get into, yes... but satisfactory? Was this really the best ME2 could do? Was this really the best thing for the series and the natural evolution of Mass Effect?



And now thanks to the posts over this last page you people are turning this into another ME2 complaint thread when that's what I never intended it to be, despite my feelings about ME2. This was supposed to be about posting some ideas and then throwing some concepts around to hopefully find a good balance. A bit hard of course when there's stubborn people who really do seem to want to dumb the game down and just have a cinematic TPS with as few RPG elements as possible.

[Iakus]

Terror_K wrote...

I just don't see at all how anybody can be satisfied with ME2's way of going about things and actually think it's a step forward and still claim to be RPG fans. I can see why they'd find it less flawed and cumbersome and easier to get into, yes... but satisfactory? Was this really the best ME2 could do? Was this really the best thing for the series and the natural evolution of Mass Effect?

Bah, you just want to lug around tons of inventory and have turn-based combat!  For shame!

 
Just thought I'd save some people the trouble of countering your statements

That said, athough inventory and equipment mean less to me than other aspects of the game, I am in full agreement with your Inventory and Equipment section.   It looks like an excellent compromise between ME 1 and ME 2.  I'd also request customizable weapons, armor, and appearance for the armors and weapons of companions.

[ScooterPie88]

Thought to make a rebuttal decided it was a lost cause.  No need to feed a troll.

Modifié par ScooterPie88, 11 novembre 2010 - 11:49 .

[Terror_K]

If people can actually come up with reasonable counterpoints then I'm happy to listen. The thing is, they haven't. Come up with a valid point and I'll discuss it. Don't excuse the simplification on the game being a "hybrid" or something like that. To me it's not a valid point at all if all you (or anybody else) do is support the game being so slimmed down the mechanics simply aren't satisfactory and lack any semblance of depth or choice. Anybody who uses the excuse of "I don't want it to get in the way of my combat" is a lost cause in my books. If Mass Effect hadn't been intended to be an RPG from the start, then the first game wouldn't have been one, and BioWare wouldn't have constantly referred to it as being an RPG in the marketing for the first game. Don't use the fact that you prefer the simpler ME2 as a means of claiming that it's what Mass Effect should be. What Mass Effect should be is however it was originally envisioned. The problem is BioWare changed their minds halfway through what we have so far, and just because you prefer it that's what you think the series should be more like.

All this "hybrid" nonsense didn't begin until ME2 showed its face anyway: before then ME was seen as an "action RPG" or an "RPG with TPS combat." It never became a hybrid until the second game, and then there's the fact that it became totally unbalanced in favour of the TPS side, that in order to work as a hybrid it didn't even need to lose half the stuff it did (changing up the combat was enough to do that, we didn't have to water down and eliminate cutomisation, building and player choice) and finally the fact that there's action-based games and shooters out there that actually have more and better customisation than ME2 does (Hitman: Blood Money, Crysis, etc.).

And, again, I don't want Mass Effect to be a pure, super-deep RPG. I just don't want it to be a mere story-driven TPS shooter. I don't want "Gears of War with Dialogue" and I don't want to see it become the same generic brown mush as every other friggin' story-driven action game out there.

Edit: I see you've changed your post. Firstly, how can I troll in my own thread? Secondly, you're the one who has come into it and just spouted a bunch of counterintuitive contradiction without even putting any effort to back up your points whatsoever... so who is really the troll here?

Modifié par Terror_K, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:00 .

[cachx]

iakus wrote...
Bah, you just want to lug around tons of inventory and have turn-based combat!  For shame!
Just thought I'd save some people the trouble of countering your statements

Waaah waahh, my 10 year old rpg convention didn't make it in.
Waaah waah, my videogame character crush was only on for 5 minutes.
Waaah waaah, the game doesn't follow the same path as my fanfic.

Role reversal, fun for all ages .

In all seriousness, the initial list had some valid points and I commented on a couple (didn't get trough the whole thing though ).

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I just don't see at all how anybody can be satisfied with ME2's way of going about things and actually think it's a step forward and still claim to be RPG fans. I can see why they'd find it less flawed and cumbersome and easier to get into, yes... but satisfactory? Was this really the best ME2 could do? Was this really the best thing for the series and the natural evolution of Mass Effect?

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

And now thanks to the posts over this last page you people are turning this into another ME2 complaint thread when that's what I never intended it to be, despite my feelings about ME2. This was supposed to be about posting some ideas and then throwing some concepts around to hopefully find a good balance.

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

A bit hard of course when there's stubborn people who really do seem to want to dumb the game down and just have a cinematic TPS with as few RPG elements as possible.

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

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:16 .

[Iakus]

cachx wrote...

iakus wrote...
Bah, you just want to lug around tons of inventory and have turn-based combat!  For shame!
Just thought I'd save some people the trouble of countering your statements

Waaah waahh, my 10 year old rpg convention didn't make it in.
Waaah waah, my videogame character crush was only on for 5 minutes.
Waaah waaah, the game doesn't follow the same path as my fanfic.

Role reversal, fun for all ages .

In all seriousness, the initial list had some valid points and I commented on a couple (didn't get trough the whole thing though ).

Totally untrue.  I never write fanfic.

Meh, I just find it irritiating when the arguements for putting some sort of inventory-modding system invariably comes back to how ME 1 did it.  As if it's the only way it could be implemented.

Let me ask the audience at home:

Is modding, be it for weapons, ammunition, or armor, an inherently bad thing?  I'm not talking about how ME 1 did it, but the general concept?

If you can honestly say "yes", then why?  To difficult to balance?  Clutters up menus too much?  No good way to implement?  Deep-seated hatred of all things inventory?  Let's hear it.

If you could answer "no" to that.  How would you introduce it to ME 3?  Purchase only?  Loot drops?  Randomly encountered?  Researched?  Removable or fixed once applied?

For the purpose of this exercise, let's pretend that ME 2 is not the be-all, end-all in inventory management.