Meh. I want 5 mod slots available to each character while on mission. 2 for armour, 3 for weapons. That's it, no more. The occasional loot drop for scannable things (upgrades, new weapon designs, mods) and the ability to sell mods and mineral resources. That's the extent of an inventory system I'd like to see. Ammo mods should be mappable to the powerwheel.
I agree with durasteel here. I don't see how "loot" or an "invenotry" are a must have RPG element. Seems outdated. Like stats. Bah. While ME2 was too streamlined and does have room for enrichment, I prefer it to ME because I can spend more time in whatever ROLE my Shep can be while PLAYING my GAME.
I guarantee ME Shooter will influence ME3
Débuté par
CRISIS1717
, nov. 18 2010 04:14
-
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
#177
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 02:51
Gorn Kregore
-
- Members
- 636 messages
CRISIS1717 wrote...
I agree the shooting is sharper in ME2 but that's not what I'm talking about at all. I was saying it became the shooter at the cost of the rpg it once was and we will see it move more towards shooter in ME3.
You mean, it removed unnecessary RPG features from Mass Effect 1 and made things simpler, right?
#178
Guest_Bennyjammin79_*
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 03:02
Guest_Bennyjammin79_*
Guest_Bennyjammin79_*
-
- Guests
Bar time.
Modifié par Bennyjammin79, 20 novembre 2010 - 03:04 .
#179
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 04:38
UgnokOfOtherThings
-
- Members
- 39 messages
You sir, I salute you.Ghost_360 wrote...
It really doesn't matter what Bioware does because it's already been proven that people will complain no matter what.
#180
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 04:45
kraidy1117
-
- Members
- 14 910 messages
Maybe ME3 will be a perfect balance, maybe ME3 will be more of a shooter like ME2, maybe ME3 will have more rpg elements like ME. No one knows, wild rumors, theories ect
Until ME3 is announced and updates start to happen, then we can start arguing and debating, but right now it's unknown how ME3 will be.
Until ME3 is announced and updates start to happen, then we can start arguing and debating, but right now it's unknown how ME3 will be.
#181
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 04:47
Count Viceroy
-
- Members
- 4 095 messages
UgnokOfOtherThings wrote...
You sir, I salute you.Ghost_360 wrote...
It really doesn't matter what Bioware does because it's already been proven that people will complain no matter what.
This is hardly limited to Bioware or even games, I'd go ahead and call it human nature.
Modifié par Count Viceroy, 20 novembre 2010 - 04:47 .
#182
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 04:56
kraidy1117
-
- Members
- 14 910 messages
Not all games are perfect. All games have flaws so if you get mad if people complain about something, then just leave the internet.Ghost_360 wrote...
It really doesn't matter what Bioware does because it's already been proven that people will complain no matter what.
Modifié par kraidy1117, 20 novembre 2010 - 05:01 .
#183
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 06:10
wookieeassassin
-
- Members
- 255 messages
My brain hurts from the last few responses. Ok, nelly, you're right, you got me there. I countered his opinion with mine. Regardless, taking half the traditional RPG elements out of ME2 didn't make it better for everyone. In my opinion, having switchable weapon and armor mods, as well as an inventory is an additional level of complexity for the game, which can make it more fun/strategic.
Any of you that are saying that any game that lets you play a role is an RPG: You're arguing semantics. A first person shooter could be an RPG if you define it that way. Actually, any game could be defined as an RPG that way. So from now on its going to be "traditional RPG" and "modern RPG". Traditional RPGs have an inventory, stores where you can sell and buy items, stats that affect your chance of landing an attack and/or defending an attack, and party members. Older RPGs only give skill points to party members that you play with. So, if you run through the whole game and don't use half your party members they will never level up.
"Modern" RPGs are games that have some traditional RPG elements, but not all.
Mass Effect is an action RPG. An action RPG means that the combat in the game is not heavily stat based and is not turn-based. Where you shoot, you shoot. You hitting an enemy isn't totally dependent on what you accuracy skill is, it is dependent (mostly) on your aiming. There isn't anything wrong with that, because that is what action RPGs are like. However, even most action RPGs contain traditional RPG elements alongside their action-oriented combat.
Mass Effect 2 was on the edge between being an RPG and not being one. Does that make it a bad game? Hell. No. Would it have been more enjoyable for me if it had an improved inventory system and allowed you to explore more areas? Yes. Do I want or have I ever wanted the combat to be turn-based or even stat-based? No. The first game was annoying in that regard because for the first half of the game your accuracy sucked so bad it was miserable to try and hit anything. For a shooter it becomes incredibly frustrating if you have to five a hundred shots for 10-20 of them to hit.
What I think would be the ideal for ME2 would be:
1) to have an inventory, but have the items of the same kind grouped, and the items that are the same stacked. You can buy, sell or find weapon or armor mods. Perhaps you could have an inventory of "x" size that would be stored on whatever ship you have and when you leave the ship you choose which items you can take. If you have too many items or don't want some of them you can sell them via the extranet or at local stores, although local stores would give you better resale prices. Also, you can't intimidate/charm extranet buyers so you have an incentive to store shop.
Be able to quickswitch weapon mods instead of having to go to a menu and and spend 30 seconds switching them. Get rid of ammo types as powers, make ammo types mods instead.
2) As far as skills go, go back to where there are combat skills, dialogue skills (intimidate/charm), and non-combat skills like hacking, electronics, etc. Each skill should be able to be progressed one point at a time so you don't end up not using some of your points at the end. However, skills for different weapons should NOT have an accuracy modifier, only damage. Like I said earlier, being so bad with a sniper for the first few hours in the game that it takes 30 seconds to line up a shot is not fun. Get rid of the universal skill timer. Make each skill unique and more useful than another in a given situation. In ME1 and ME2 some of the skills were just so much better than the others the crappier ones were rarely used.
3) More areas to explore. Ground exploration vehicle, don't know if it'll be the hammerhead or not. Other areas that have to be explored on foot.
4) Killing enemies should give you experience, as well as finding out new information. Killing enemies gives you credits also. If people really need an explanation for getting credits from enemies, they either had credits on them or they had technology that people would pay for (kind of like how Cerberus gave you 100 credits for "retrieving valuable tech" when you got medi-gel when you were full)
5) (Visible) Stats for weapons, armor, and enemies. Perhaps a datalog that keeps track of certain enemies and their immunities, etc. Say for instance you look at a Krogan warlord. A Krogan Warlord would require so many newtons of force to be knocked down with a biotic throw, or require a certain level of lift of singularity. Even in the first game I wasn't sure if it was worth it increasing my throw 100 newtons or not because I didn't know whether or not it would make a difference with certain enemies.
6) Explorable areas where enemies are a high level and you just don't go there unless you: 1) want to die or 2) go there and fight enemies once you've reached a higher level. I know it isn't that important, but anytime you can go do something you used to could not do in a game gives you a feeling of accomplishment.
7) Have more skills work on enemies with defenses. It was annoying in ME2 that you could only use biotics on enemies with health only. By the time you got someone to that level you could just kill them faster by shooting them. Maybe certain defenses would stop certain things or make things less effective, but it shouldn't be complete immunity. For instance, warp would weaken armor quite a bit but wouldn't do much for
8) I want some high stakes credit gambling in at least one of the clubs at a hubworld. It would be great to be able to sit down at a table and play cards/whatever with a group of NPCs. Perhaps could even be part of a side quest of some kind. I liked that you were able to do some things at bars, like get a drink or go out and dance (clumsily) but it'd be nice if there was more to do.
I don't think ME3 is going to end up a shooter just because they have another team making a multiplayer one (well its actually still a rumor). I just don't want it to be, because all the other stuff makes the game a deeper, more enjoyable experience.
DON'T mess with the cover based shooting. The shooting aspect of ME2 was about 10 times as good as it was in ME1.
Any of you that are saying that any game that lets you play a role is an RPG: You're arguing semantics. A first person shooter could be an RPG if you define it that way. Actually, any game could be defined as an RPG that way. So from now on its going to be "traditional RPG" and "modern RPG". Traditional RPGs have an inventory, stores where you can sell and buy items, stats that affect your chance of landing an attack and/or defending an attack, and party members. Older RPGs only give skill points to party members that you play with. So, if you run through the whole game and don't use half your party members they will never level up.
"Modern" RPGs are games that have some traditional RPG elements, but not all.
Mass Effect is an action RPG. An action RPG means that the combat in the game is not heavily stat based and is not turn-based. Where you shoot, you shoot. You hitting an enemy isn't totally dependent on what you accuracy skill is, it is dependent (mostly) on your aiming. There isn't anything wrong with that, because that is what action RPGs are like. However, even most action RPGs contain traditional RPG elements alongside their action-oriented combat.
Mass Effect 2 was on the edge between being an RPG and not being one. Does that make it a bad game? Hell. No. Would it have been more enjoyable for me if it had an improved inventory system and allowed you to explore more areas? Yes. Do I want or have I ever wanted the combat to be turn-based or even stat-based? No. The first game was annoying in that regard because for the first half of the game your accuracy sucked so bad it was miserable to try and hit anything. For a shooter it becomes incredibly frustrating if you have to five a hundred shots for 10-20 of them to hit.
What I think would be the ideal for ME2 would be:
1) to have an inventory, but have the items of the same kind grouped, and the items that are the same stacked. You can buy, sell or find weapon or armor mods. Perhaps you could have an inventory of "x" size that would be stored on whatever ship you have and when you leave the ship you choose which items you can take. If you have too many items or don't want some of them you can sell them via the extranet or at local stores, although local stores would give you better resale prices. Also, you can't intimidate/charm extranet buyers so you have an incentive to store shop.
Be able to quickswitch weapon mods instead of having to go to a menu and and spend 30 seconds switching them. Get rid of ammo types as powers, make ammo types mods instead.
2) As far as skills go, go back to where there are combat skills, dialogue skills (intimidate/charm), and non-combat skills like hacking, electronics, etc. Each skill should be able to be progressed one point at a time so you don't end up not using some of your points at the end. However, skills for different weapons should NOT have an accuracy modifier, only damage. Like I said earlier, being so bad with a sniper for the first few hours in the game that it takes 30 seconds to line up a shot is not fun. Get rid of the universal skill timer. Make each skill unique and more useful than another in a given situation. In ME1 and ME2 some of the skills were just so much better than the others the crappier ones were rarely used.
3) More areas to explore. Ground exploration vehicle, don't know if it'll be the hammerhead or not. Other areas that have to be explored on foot.
4) Killing enemies should give you experience, as well as finding out new information. Killing enemies gives you credits also. If people really need an explanation for getting credits from enemies, they either had credits on them or they had technology that people would pay for (kind of like how Cerberus gave you 100 credits for "retrieving valuable tech" when you got medi-gel when you were full)
5) (Visible) Stats for weapons, armor, and enemies. Perhaps a datalog that keeps track of certain enemies and their immunities, etc. Say for instance you look at a Krogan warlord. A Krogan Warlord would require so many newtons of force to be knocked down with a biotic throw, or require a certain level of lift of singularity. Even in the first game I wasn't sure if it was worth it increasing my throw 100 newtons or not because I didn't know whether or not it would make a difference with certain enemies.
6) Explorable areas where enemies are a high level and you just don't go there unless you: 1) want to die or 2) go there and fight enemies once you've reached a higher level. I know it isn't that important, but anytime you can go do something you used to could not do in a game gives you a feeling of accomplishment.
7) Have more skills work on enemies with defenses. It was annoying in ME2 that you could only use biotics on enemies with health only. By the time you got someone to that level you could just kill them faster by shooting them. Maybe certain defenses would stop certain things or make things less effective, but it shouldn't be complete immunity. For instance, warp would weaken armor quite a bit but wouldn't do much for
8) I want some high stakes credit gambling in at least one of the clubs at a hubworld. It would be great to be able to sit down at a table and play cards/whatever with a group of NPCs. Perhaps could even be part of a side quest of some kind. I liked that you were able to do some things at bars, like get a drink or go out and dance (clumsily) but it'd be nice if there was more to do.
I don't think ME3 is going to end up a shooter just because they have another team making a multiplayer one (well its actually still a rumor). I just don't want it to be, because all the other stuff makes the game a deeper, more enjoyable experience.
DON'T mess with the cover based shooting. The shooting aspect of ME2 was about 10 times as good as it was in ME1.
Modifié par wookieeassassin, 20 novembre 2010 - 06:14 .
#184
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 06:53
MrFob
-
- Members
- 5 412 messages
wookieeassassin wrote...
*snip*
What I think would be the ideal for ME2 would be:
1) to have an inventory, but have the items of the same kind grouped, and the items that are the same stacked. You can buy, sell or find weapon or armor mods. Perhaps you could have an inventory of "x" size that would be stored on whatever ship you have and when you leave the ship you choose which items you can take. If you have too many items or don't want some of them you can sell them via the extranet or at local stores, although local stores would give you better resale prices. Also, you can't intimidate/charm extranet buyers so you have an incentive to store shop.
Be able to quickswitch weapon mods instead of having to go to a menu and and spend 30 seconds switching them. Get rid of ammo types as powers, make ammo types mods instead.
I'd prefer an inventory in ME3 nut to be fair, the inventory in ME1 wasn't that great. There were like 5 different items for each class, which were grouped from I to X. All you did was gradually increasing the numbers for your squad members. Not very exciting. The only thing that was cool were the armors because they changed the looks and were really distinct in their usefulness. If they are going to make an inventory for ME3, it should be more along the lines DA:O with lot's of unique items, etc. Otherwise, IMO they can keep it as it was in ME2. With 12 people to manage, I understand why they took it out in the forst place.
2) As far as skills go, go back to where there are combat skills, dialogue skills (intimidate/charm), and non-combat skills like hacking, electronics, etc. Each skill should be able to be progressed one point at a time so you don't end up not using some of your points at the end. However, skills for different weapons should NOT have an accuracy modifier, only damage. Like I said earlier, being so bad with a sniper for the first few hours in the game that it takes 30 seconds to line up a shot is not fun. Get rid of the universal skill timer. Make each skill unique and more useful than another in a given situation. In ME1 and ME2 some of the skills were just so much better than the others the crappier ones were rarely used.
I agree here. we need more non combat skills. Also the persuasion should be skill based again.
3) More areas to explore. Ground exploration vehicle, don't know if it'll be the hammerhead or not. Other areas that have to be explored on foot.
Agreed. I thought Overlord was perfect in that regard (I know not everyone agrees but I thought it was fun).
4) Killing enemies should give you experience, as well as finding out new information. Killing enemies gives you credits also. If people really need an explanation for getting credits from enemies, they either had credits on them or they had technology that people would pay for (kind of like how Cerberus gave you 100 credits for "retrieving valuable tech" when you got medi-gel when you were full)
Yeah, why not, doesn't make too mcuh of a difference IMO. You get the exp. If you get it when you kill an enemy or by the end of a mission, don't really care.
5) (Visible) Stats for weapons, armor, and enemies. Perhaps a datalog that keeps track of certain enemies and their immunities, etc. Say for instance you look at a Krogan warlord. A Krogan Warlord would require so many newtons of force to be knocked down with a biotic throw, or require a certain level of lift of singularity. Even in the first game I wasn't sure if it was worth it increasing my throw 100 newtons or not because I didn't know whether or not it would make a difference with certain enemies.
I disagree. Don't drown us in stats. Let us find out what the best strategy for an enemy is.
6) Explorable areas where enemies are a high level and you just don't go there unless you: 1) want to die or 2) go there and fight enemies once you've reached a higher level. I know it isn't that important, but anytime you can go do something you used to could not do in a game gives you a feeling of accomplishment.
Hm, while I like the o;d gothic games especially for that, I am not sure how well it would work in ME. I didn't mind the leveling of enemies as long as you still have strong ones and cannon-fodder.
7) Have more skills work on enemies with defenses. It was annoying in ME2 that you could only use biotics on enemies with health only. By the time you got someone to that level you could just kill them faster by shooting them. Maybe certain defenses would stop certain things or make things less effective, but it shouldn't be complete immunity. For instance, warp would weaken armor quite a bit but wouldn't do much for
Yes, I think they took the rock-paper-sizzlers approach a bit far in ME2. However, they should still severely reduce effectiveness of certain skills when enemies have armor/shields/barriers. It adds a layer to the tactical approach and forces the player to think about the suad he wants to take along and the weapons he chooses.
8) I want some high stakes credit gambling in at least one of the clubs at a hubworld. It would be great to be able to sit down at a table and play cards/whatever with a group of NPCs. Perhaps could even be part of a side quest of some kind. I liked that you were able to do some things at bars, like get a drink or go out and dance (clumsily) but it'd be nice if there was more to do.
Well, if they want to add that I hope it is completely optional (as in you don't even have to do it to buy everything in stores if you do all side missions instead). I mean, as great a minigame as pazaak was, at some point, it really got on my nerves to play it, just to get the creds I needed to buy that lightsaber crystal from that guy on that space station. I don't really need a game at all.
I don't think ME3 is going to end up a shooter just because they have another team making a multiplayer one (well its actually still a rumor). I just don't want it to be, because all the other stuff makes the game a deeper, more enjoyable experience.
DON'T mess with the cover based shooting. The shooting aspect of ME2 was about 10 times as good as it was in ME1.
Agreed, the combat formula for ME2 was good. Wouldn't hurt to give it some more freedom though (crouching and some irregular cover to crouch behind for snipers, etc. Goes with the more explorable surroundings.
#185
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 07:04
KingDan97
-
- Members
- 1 361 messages
Paper covers Rock. Rib Eye bleeds through Paper, Rock tenderizes Rib Eye? (sizzler.com For those who don't get it)MrFob wrote...
rock-paper-sizzlers
Modifié par KingDan97, 20 novembre 2010 - 07:06 .
#186
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 07:49
MrFob
-
- Members
- 5 412 messages
KingDan97 wrote...
Paper covers Rock. Rib Eye bleeds through Paper, Rock tenderizes Rib Eye? (sizzler.com For those who don't get it)MrFob wrote...
rock-paper-sizzlers
... ... 
How did my spell check do THAT?!?!
However, I think Rib Eye still beats everything
.
#187
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 09:16
Phaedon
-
- Members
- 8 617 messages
[quote]wookieeassassin wrote...
My brain hurts from the last few responses. Ok, nelly, you're right, you got me there. I countered his opinion with mine. Regardless, taking half the traditional RPG elements out of ME2 didn't make it better for everyone. In my opinion, having switchable weapon and armor mods, as well as an inventory is an additional level of complexity for the game, which can make it more fun/strategic.[/quote]
Your brain...hurts ? If you don't respect anyone's opinion, I doubt anyone has to respect yours.
[quote]Any of you that are saying that any game that lets you play a role is an RPG: You're arguing semantics. A first person shooter could be an RPG if you define it that way. Actually, any game could be defined as an RPG that way. So from now on its going to be "traditional RPG" and "modern RPG". Traditional RPGs have an inventory, stores where you can sell and buy items, stats that affect your chance of landing an attack and/or defending an attack, and party members. Older RPGs only give skill points to party members that you play with. So, if you run through the whole game and don't use half your party members they will never level up.
"Modern" RPGs are games that have some traditional RPG elements, but not all.[/quote]
Your logic is flawed. You can't seperate a game genre based on terms like 'traditional' and 'modern'. Unless a huge step is taken forward (like switching to point and click instead of text in adventures), they are still the same genre/subgenre. And there is already a definition for RPGs.
[quote]The player in RPGs controls one or several adventuring party members fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.[/quote]
I see nothing about stats there.
[quote]Mass Effect is an action RPG. An action RPG means that the combat in the game is not heavily stat based and is not turn-based. Where you shoot, you shoot. You hitting an enemy isn't totally dependent on what you accuracy skill is, it is dependent (mostly) on your aiming. There isn't anything wrong with that, because that is what action RPGs are like. However, even most action RPGs contain traditional RPG elements alongside their action-oriented combat.[/quote]
Are you implying that it's a good thing to keep traditional concepts ?
[quote]Mass Effect 2 was on the edge between being an RPG and not being one. Does that make it a bad game? Hell. No. Would it have been more enjoyable for me if it had an improved inventory system and allowed you to explore more areas? Yes. Do I want or have I ever wanted the combat to be turn-based or even stat-based? No. The first game was annoying in that regard because for the first half of the game your accuracy sucked so bad it was miserable to try and hit anything. For a shooter it becomes incredibly frustrating if you have to five a hundred shots for 10-20 of them to hit.
What I think would be the ideal for ME2 would be:
1) to have an inventory, but have the items of the same kind grouped, and the items that are the same stacked. You can buy, sell or find weapon or armor mods. Perhaps you could have an inventory of "x" size that would be stored on whatever ship you have and when you leave the ship you choose which items you can take. If you have too many items or don't want some of them you can sell them via the extranet or at local stores, although local stores would give you better resale prices. Also, you can't intimidate/charm extranet buyers so you have an incentive to store shop.
Be able to quickswitch weapon mods instead of having to go to a menu and and spend 30 seconds switching them. Get rid of ammo types as powers, make ammo types mods instead.
[/quote]
Why do you want to have identical items with only different stats in your inventory ? Didn't you just say that you didn't want the game to be stat-based ? All weapons should is to fit different playstyles. ME2 worked on that, but didn't succeed completely. Nevertheless, it was far better than ME1 in that aspect.
[quote]2) As far as skills go, go back to where there are combat skills, dialogue skills (intimidate/charm), and non-combat skills like hacking, electronics, etc. Each skill should be able to be progressed one point at a time so you don't end up not using some of your points at the end. However, skills for different weapons should NOT have an accuracy modifier, only damage. Like I said earlier, being so bad with a sniper for the first few hours in the game that it takes 30 seconds to line up a shot is not fun. Get rid of the universal skill timer. Make each skill unique and more useful than another in a given situation. In ME1 and ME2 some of the skills were just so much better than the others the crappier ones were rarely used.[/quote]
Stat-based skills then. Okay.
[quote]3) More areas to explore. Ground exploration vehicle, don't know if it'll be the hammerhead or not. Other areas that have to be explored on foot. [/quote]
Yes.
[quote]4) Killing enemies should give you experience, as well as finding out new information. Killing enemies gives you credits also. If people really need an explanation for getting credits from enemies, they either had credits on them or they had technology that people would pay for (kind of like how Cerberus gave you 100 credits for "retrieving valuable tech" when you got medi-gel when you were full)[/quote]
Loot ?
Nah, just kidding, I don't care about that.
[quote]5) (Visible) Stats for weapons, armor, and enemies. Perhaps a datalog that keeps track of certain enemies and their immunities, etc. Say for instance you look at a Krogan warlord. A Krogan Warlord would require so many newtons of force to be knocked down with a biotic throw, or require a certain level of lift of singularity. Even in the first game I wasn't sure if it was worth it increasing my throw 100 newtons or not because I didn't know whether or not it would make a difference with certain enemies.[/quote]
Not that the majority would use it, but I guess that it would be good if they added it in the Codex somehow.
[quote]6) Explorable areas where enemies are a high level and you just don't go there unless you: 1) want to die or 2) go there and fight enemies once you've reached a higher level. I know it isn't that important, but anytime you can go do something you used to could not do in a game gives you a feeling of accomplishment.[/quote]
I get what you are trying to say, but map design doesn't work that way, unfortunately. Lots of rage.
[quote]7) Have more skills work on enemies with defenses. It was annoying in ME2 that you could only use biotics on enemies with health only. By the time you got someone to that level you could just kill them faster by shooting them. Maybe certain defenses would stop certain things or make things less effective, but it shouldn't be complete immunity. For instance, warp would weaken armor quite a bit but wouldn't do much for [/quote]
Meh, I prefer something between what ME and ME2 had.
[quote]8) I want some high stakes credit gambling in at least one of the clubs at a hubworld. It would be great to be able to sit down at a table and play cards/whatever with a group of NPCs. Perhaps could even be part of a side quest of some kind. I liked that you were able to do some things at bars, like get a drink or go out and dance (clumsily) but it'd be nice if there was more to do.[/quote]
Yes, Nos Astra on Illium and the Wards on the Citadel should have credit gambling.
[quote]I don't think ME3 is going to end up a shooter just because they have another team making a multiplayer one (well its actually still a rumor). I just don't want it to be, because all the other stuff makes the game a deeper, more enjoyable experience.
DON'T mess with the cover based shooting. The shooting aspect of ME2 was about 10 times as good as it was in ME1.[/quote]
Agreed.
Out of your 8 points, most are suggestions for ME3, and the ones that you explain why you were dissappointed by ME2's RPG elements have to do with stats even though you said that you didn't like stats. Am I misunderstanding something ?
[quote]kraidy1117 wrote...
Maybe ME3 will be a perfect balance, maybe ME3 will be more of a shooter like ME2, maybe ME3 will have more rpg elements like ME. No one knows, wild rumors, theories ect
Until ME3 is announced and updates start to happen, then we can start arguing and debating, but right now it's unknown how ME3 will be. [/quote]
Please explain to me why you think that ME2 had less RPG elements.
My brain hurts from the last few responses. Ok, nelly, you're right, you got me there. I countered his opinion with mine. Regardless, taking half the traditional RPG elements out of ME2 didn't make it better for everyone. In my opinion, having switchable weapon and armor mods, as well as an inventory is an additional level of complexity for the game, which can make it more fun/strategic.[/quote]
Your brain...hurts ? If you don't respect anyone's opinion, I doubt anyone has to respect yours.
[quote]Any of you that are saying that any game that lets you play a role is an RPG: You're arguing semantics. A first person shooter could be an RPG if you define it that way. Actually, any game could be defined as an RPG that way. So from now on its going to be "traditional RPG" and "modern RPG". Traditional RPGs have an inventory, stores where you can sell and buy items, stats that affect your chance of landing an attack and/or defending an attack, and party members. Older RPGs only give skill points to party members that you play with. So, if you run through the whole game and don't use half your party members they will never level up.
"Modern" RPGs are games that have some traditional RPG elements, but not all.[/quote]
Your logic is flawed. You can't seperate a game genre based on terms like 'traditional' and 'modern'. Unless a huge step is taken forward (like switching to point and click instead of text in adventures), they are still the same genre/subgenre. And there is already a definition for RPGs.
[quote]The player in RPGs controls one or several adventuring party members fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.[/quote]
I see nothing about stats there.
[quote]Mass Effect is an action RPG. An action RPG means that the combat in the game is not heavily stat based and is not turn-based. Where you shoot, you shoot. You hitting an enemy isn't totally dependent on what you accuracy skill is, it is dependent (mostly) on your aiming. There isn't anything wrong with that, because that is what action RPGs are like. However, even most action RPGs contain traditional RPG elements alongside their action-oriented combat.[/quote]
Are you implying that it's a good thing to keep traditional concepts ?
[quote]Mass Effect 2 was on the edge between being an RPG and not being one. Does that make it a bad game? Hell. No. Would it have been more enjoyable for me if it had an improved inventory system and allowed you to explore more areas? Yes. Do I want or have I ever wanted the combat to be turn-based or even stat-based? No. The first game was annoying in that regard because for the first half of the game your accuracy sucked so bad it was miserable to try and hit anything. For a shooter it becomes incredibly frustrating if you have to five a hundred shots for 10-20 of them to hit.
What I think would be the ideal for ME2 would be:
1) to have an inventory, but have the items of the same kind grouped, and the items that are the same stacked. You can buy, sell or find weapon or armor mods. Perhaps you could have an inventory of "x" size that would be stored on whatever ship you have and when you leave the ship you choose which items you can take. If you have too many items or don't want some of them you can sell them via the extranet or at local stores, although local stores would give you better resale prices. Also, you can't intimidate/charm extranet buyers so you have an incentive to store shop.
Be able to quickswitch weapon mods instead of having to go to a menu and and spend 30 seconds switching them. Get rid of ammo types as powers, make ammo types mods instead.
[/quote]
Why do you want to have identical items with only different stats in your inventory ? Didn't you just say that you didn't want the game to be stat-based ? All weapons should is to fit different playstyles. ME2 worked on that, but didn't succeed completely. Nevertheless, it was far better than ME1 in that aspect.
[quote]2) As far as skills go, go back to where there are combat skills, dialogue skills (intimidate/charm), and non-combat skills like hacking, electronics, etc. Each skill should be able to be progressed one point at a time so you don't end up not using some of your points at the end. However, skills for different weapons should NOT have an accuracy modifier, only damage. Like I said earlier, being so bad with a sniper for the first few hours in the game that it takes 30 seconds to line up a shot is not fun. Get rid of the universal skill timer. Make each skill unique and more useful than another in a given situation. In ME1 and ME2 some of the skills were just so much better than the others the crappier ones were rarely used.[/quote]
Stat-based skills then. Okay.
[quote]3) More areas to explore. Ground exploration vehicle, don't know if it'll be the hammerhead or not. Other areas that have to be explored on foot. [/quote]
Yes.
[quote]4) Killing enemies should give you experience, as well as finding out new information. Killing enemies gives you credits also. If people really need an explanation for getting credits from enemies, they either had credits on them or they had technology that people would pay for (kind of like how Cerberus gave you 100 credits for "retrieving valuable tech" when you got medi-gel when you were full)[/quote]
Loot ?
Nah, just kidding, I don't care about that.[quote]5) (Visible) Stats for weapons, armor, and enemies. Perhaps a datalog that keeps track of certain enemies and their immunities, etc. Say for instance you look at a Krogan warlord. A Krogan Warlord would require so many newtons of force to be knocked down with a biotic throw, or require a certain level of lift of singularity. Even in the first game I wasn't sure if it was worth it increasing my throw 100 newtons or not because I didn't know whether or not it would make a difference with certain enemies.[/quote]
Not that the majority would use it, but I guess that it would be good if they added it in the Codex somehow.
[quote]6) Explorable areas where enemies are a high level and you just don't go there unless you: 1) want to die or 2) go there and fight enemies once you've reached a higher level. I know it isn't that important, but anytime you can go do something you used to could not do in a game gives you a feeling of accomplishment.[/quote]
I get what you are trying to say, but map design doesn't work that way, unfortunately. Lots of rage.
[quote]7) Have more skills work on enemies with defenses. It was annoying in ME2 that you could only use biotics on enemies with health only. By the time you got someone to that level you could just kill them faster by shooting them. Maybe certain defenses would stop certain things or make things less effective, but it shouldn't be complete immunity. For instance, warp would weaken armor quite a bit but wouldn't do much for [/quote]
Meh, I prefer something between what ME and ME2 had.
[quote]8) I want some high stakes credit gambling in at least one of the clubs at a hubworld. It would be great to be able to sit down at a table and play cards/whatever with a group of NPCs. Perhaps could even be part of a side quest of some kind. I liked that you were able to do some things at bars, like get a drink or go out and dance (clumsily) but it'd be nice if there was more to do.[/quote]
Yes, Nos Astra on Illium and the Wards on the Citadel should have credit gambling.
[quote]I don't think ME3 is going to end up a shooter just because they have another team making a multiplayer one (well its actually still a rumor). I just don't want it to be, because all the other stuff makes the game a deeper, more enjoyable experience.
DON'T mess with the cover based shooting. The shooting aspect of ME2 was about 10 times as good as it was in ME1.[/quote]
Agreed.
Out of your 8 points, most are suggestions for ME3, and the ones that you explain why you were dissappointed by ME2's RPG elements have to do with stats even though you said that you didn't like stats. Am I misunderstanding something ?
[quote]kraidy1117 wrote...
Maybe ME3 will be a perfect balance, maybe ME3 will be more of a shooter like ME2, maybe ME3 will have more rpg elements like ME. No one knows, wild rumors, theories ect
Until ME3 is announced and updates start to happen, then we can start arguing and debating, but right now it's unknown how ME3 will be. [/quote]
Please explain to me why you think that ME2 had less RPG elements.
Modifié par Phaedon, 20 novembre 2010 - 09:17 .
#188
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 03:25
BamBam38
-
- Members
- 137 messages
Onyx Jaguar wrote...
I would agree with you if I actually believed that those "RPG elements" were a good replacement for what we have in "shooter Games". I do not think so. The Major difference we have in ME 2 from ME 1 is the lack of putting stats into Accuracy and Armor.
So what, the weapons have feel now, they feel like I can kill something with them instead of just shooting jello all over the place.
Substituing RPG over the base elements of what makes a Shooter is a poor substitute. The ancillary stuff around it can be where the RPG can be placed.
People forget that's what the upgrades are for. I guess you don't put in stats for them but you need to buy them/find them
#189
Posté 20 novembre 2010 - 05:03
Pacifien
-
- Members
- 11 527 messages
I can't tell if this has become another Disappointment with ME2 thread, but I certainly do see more discussion about what ME2 should have been versus what ME3 could be. In any case, as this started as another thread speculating what the teaser video could be, I'm going to close it in favor of other threads that have managed to stick to the point.
