147 réponses à ce sujet

[LURadio]

I loved Mass Effect but there is just way too much that was wrong with it that I never want back, and that's just one of the things, there was also some things I disliked about Mass Effect 2 too.

[LURadio]

Well ya there is certain situations but like you said, look how many playthroughs it took for you to get anywhere close to both options

[Gleym]

See, that's what all of the lobbyists worshipping ME2 never seem to get. They always seem to think that when we say stuff like 'bring the RPG features' back, or 'bring the inventory back', they think we're asking for the flaws to be brought back. What we WANT is the good from ME1, without its flaws, brought back to act as the RPG counter-balance to the Shooter function; something which ME2 sadly lacked.

[Omega-202]

Gleym wrote...

See, that's what all of the lobbyists worshipping ME2 never seem to get. They always seem to think that when we say stuff like 'bring the RPG features' back, or 'bring the inventory back', they think we're asking for the flaws to be brought back. What we WANT is the good from ME1, without its flaws, brought back to act as the RPG counter-balance to the Shooter function; something which ME2 sadly lacked.

But many people consider the "Charm and Intimidate" stats inherently as flaws in and of themselves.

Just because you don't see them as flaws does not mean that others don't as well.  If anything, BioWare obviously thought that they were flaws as they did away with them.  

I'm fine with additional RPG elements, but honestly, putting points into "talking skills" at the expense of combat proficiency is the last thing that should come back.  As you've said, this is an RPG-Shooter hybrid.  Ideally, each element should coexist without HARMING the other.  Having to choose proficiency in one aspect over the other destroys the seamless hybridization.  

Bring back armor sets, weapon mods, expanded ability pools, some sort of actual vendor system, more open worlds/hubs and a thousand other things.  But the last thing that should be brought back is a "talking" talent that handicaps combat.  

[Gleym]

So in other words 'Shoot everything until its dead with no other option' is.. ideal coexistance of the two traits? Play Planescape: Torment. That's an RPG where 99.97% of ALL of your experience gained and conflicts that can be solved are done via dialog. In fact, dialog earns you more throughout the course of the game than combat ever does. In terms of an RPG, Torment is the epitome and embodiment of the true nature of the concept.



But hey, it's not like the Shooter crowd isn't entirely biased, right? I mean, if we talked about adding more RPG features and removing some of the Shooter ones, you guys wouldn't mind at all, right?

[Omega-202]

AwesomeName wrote...

That's certainly something to consider - perhaps they don't have to do it THAT way either... In any case, I still want to be unrestricted in the dialogue I choose.  Sometimes my paragon has to act tough, not just BE tough. 

And I agree with you.  You shouldn't be pigeonholed into one alignment.  

But the OP and the general trend of this thread is that some people want the ME 1 system back.  It should be a new system that allows for what you're asking for WITHOUT harming the intuitiveness that BioWare created in ME2.  

I'm also not going to respond to the certain purposefully belligerent posters here who are just arguing for the sake of arguing.  They can continue crowing until the cows come home because someone took away their lollipop and its never coming back.  

[Omega-202]

AwesomeName wrote...

^I quite like the OP of this thread:

http://social.biowar...-5351821-1.html

Basically it's similar to DA in that the powers and skills are separate and don't eat into each other.

Not really.  Those aren't "skills" on the bottom like DA.  Those are a mix of attributes that affect combat and a persuasion skill.  

That is exactly what BioWare wanted to change and exactly what they DID do right in DA.  The skills in DA were just that, skills.  They didn't affect combat for the most part (besides the ones added in Awakening, which I think were a mistake).  

If there was a second set of points, like proposed, and they only affected out of combat skills like Persuasion, Barter, Research etc.  then I fully support it.  But as proposed in that other thread, it doesn't solve the main gripe with the "combat effectiveness vs persuasion" problem.  

[Omega-202]

AwesomeName wrote...

I said it was similar, not exactly the same - no need to get all pedantic about it .   I think as a suggestion it's a very good starting point and Bioware could resolve its design.  Better to support the aspects of it that are good, than to dismiss it for the aspects that are bad.

*I haven't read that OP carefully - I just looked at the pictures and got the impression that basically, the two sections each use their own pool of points that don't eat into each other, which I think is an excellent idea.

I apologize for my tone.

As I said, it would be nice to have a second pool of skills, just as long as each set runs off of a different pool of points and you don't mix combat and non-combat.  Thats the only reason I dismissed the OP of that other thread.  The people who vehemently supported him saw no issue with "Persuasion" being a direct trade off to "Durability" and "Power Cooldown".

[Omega-202]

AwesomeName wrote...

No worries dude!

Personally I'm not sure about what should go into the traits section (if we had one), but I don't think persuasion should be all by itself there.

There should definitely be more.  They could bring back an economy/shop and give the player some sort of "barter" skill.  They could have a trait that makes it cheaper to research upgrades.  They could have one that lets you collect resources faster or hack terminals easier.  

There are a lot of non-combat options.  We've got 5 valid ones right there.  

[revengeance]

Gleym wrote...

So in other words 'Shoot everything until its dead with no other option' is.. ideal coexistance of the two traits? Play Planescape: Torment. That's an RPG where 99.97% of ALL of your experience gained and conflicts that can be solved are done via dialog. In fact, dialog earns you more throughout the course of the game than combat ever does. In terms of an RPG, Torment is the epitome and embodiment of the true nature of the concept.

But hey, it's not like the Shooter crowd isn't entirely biased, right? I mean, if we talked about adding more RPG features and removing some of the Shooter ones, you guys wouldn't mind at all, right?

I like this guy.

[revengeance]

Gleym wrote...

See, that's what all of the lobbyists worshipping ME2 never seem to get. They always seem to think that when we say stuff like 'bring the RPG features' back, or 'bring the inventory back', they think we're asking for the flaws to be brought back. What we WANT is the good from ME1, without its flaws, brought back to act as the RPG counter-balance to the Shooter function; something which ME2 sadly lacked.

Agreed, not much from ME1 was flawed and NONE of it was broken. A few tweaks instead of cutting almost 90% of the rpg would have been fine...

[revengeance]

Autoclave wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

Don't make people to trade off between "combat skill" and "dialog skill" if the game is combat heavy and most combat can't be avoided by dialog. The value of skill points put into combat or dialog will never be balanced.

In ME1, one need to sacrifice a lot of combat skills to get full dialog skills, but those dialog skills don't really contribute that much to the game.

The buttomline is that you can rely solely on combat skills to finish a game, but not on dialog for most games.
So don't make combat and dialog share the same "level up resource".

Why not? It's a trade-off. Any good RPG does that. The Elder Scroll series for example, tons of different skills and not all them are related to combat, you have athletics, acrobatics, some related to dialogue, it's all about building your character. You can't work on different skills at the same time, if you work on dialogue skills, you have less time to work on combat skills. Otherwise, everyone will have top dialogue skills and combat, makes no sense. You have to pay for your superior dialogue skills which may help you get things which can maybe be worth for combat.

Trade off? Oh yeah?? Then accept the ME2 trade off, that you are not some sort of shizoid with split-personality disorder. If Shep is sane, he will not bounce from one extreme of his character to another. 

I really hate sharing the combat skills and persuasion skill from the same skill pool. I don't want and I HATE to play half of the game with a gimped character that cannot shoot a damn fly just because he was forced to waste his skill points on some charming skill. 

I understand having a tradeoff between revenant and widow for example. This is a true RPG trade off. All this dialogue crap is disgusting. And if you are saying persuasion being a skill that has to be learned, well, shep is learning it by actually talking! The more you speak like a badass, the more intimidating you are able to seem later. 

You are all ppl pissed off because you cannot get some quests solved by staying neutral. Some of you really need a third "neutral" dialogue skill. 

Finally, as a smart person has noted here, Mass Effect is not fallout (1,2) were you can talk you way out of some combat situations. And I'd hate to invest my skill points into charming instead of a level 4 charge, just to convince miranda and jack to stay cool. 

Wow...haha ok where to start with this guy...For one putting like 10 points ( the max ) into you social skills would not make you unable to shoot straight. TWO - This whole problem would be solved by implementing my system then making it so that you can max EVERYTHING out with multiple play throughs. AND as for the weapon trade off's AGAIN that is fine but i personally think that is really lame that i can not get all the rest of the weapons on my next play throughs.

[revengeance]

Sidney wrote...

revengeance wrote...3

Ok that is fine but i do not feel that it is fun or necessary to force me to be an absolute i like my neutral choices they reflect my personality,  why can i not play the way i feel is right and not pay for it later?

This rationale is ridiculous. You want consequence free decision making? If you play as Ghandi for an entire game and then you want to go all Jack the Ripper you think, as a public figure, you might have a credibility problem?

What you really want is not to have to role play. You, and so many others, confuse role playing with stat leveling. ME2 makes your choices have consequences - the way you play your role matters. In ME1 as long as pump stats into "Charm" you can kill everything that looks cross-ways at you and still charm the heck out of anyone.  There's functinally not much different between the ME2 style of "use it and increase" approach to conversational skills than there is to Oblivions system for improving skills by using them.

No it is not rediculous i love role playing but this is playing the role of, well let's quote what you said i either have to be GHANDI or JACK THE RIPPER there is no in between if you want to achieve any level of succes in the game. My choices will have consequences regardless of which system is used lol. But with a better system maybe my sheppard can reflect me a little more im not perfect sometimes i am bad but for the most part i save the galaxy and do the right thing.

[revengeance]

cachx wrote...

Sidney wrote...

revengeance wrote...3
Ok that is fine but i do not feel that it is fun or necessary to force me to be an absolute i like my neutral choices they reflect my personality,  why can i not play the way i feel is right and not pay for it later?

This rationale is ridiculous. You want consequence free decision making? If you play as Ghandi for an entire game and then you want to go all Jack the Ripper you think, as a public figure, you might have a credibility problem?
What you really want is not to have to role play. You, and so many others, confuse role playing with stat leveling. ME2 makes your choices have consequences - the way you play your role matters. In ME1 as long as pump stats into "Charm" you can kill everything that looks cross-ways at you and still charm the heck out of anyone.  There's functinally not much different between the ME2 style of "use it and increase" approach to conversational skills than there is to Oblivions system for improving skills by using them.

Have to agree with Sid here. Even if ME2 system isn't perfect (needs a lot of balancing) at least encourages consistency. If you want to do whatever you want, whenever you want to, why not get rid of the paragon/renegade system completly, and adopt something similar to DAO?

Why do we have to be consistent why can we not have many options as too which way to handle a situation The decisions should not be - Black nuetral with no benefit or white -

That would be fine DAO had a good system.

[revengeance]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

Don't make people to trade off between "combat skill" and "dialog skill" if the game is combat heavy and most combat can't be avoided by dialog. The value of skill points put into combat or dialog will never be balanced.

In ME1, one need to sacrifice a lot of combat skills to get full dialog skills, but those dialog skills don't really contribute that much to the game.

The buttomline is that you can rely solely on combat skills to finish a game, but not on dialog for most games.
So don't make combat and dialog share the same "level up resource".

Why not? It's a trade-off. Any good RPG does that. The Elder Scroll series for example, tons of different skills and not all them are related to combat, you have athletics, acrobatics, some related to dialogue, it's all about building your character. You can't work on different skills at the same time, if you work on dialogue skills, you have less time to work on combat skills. Otherwise, everyone will have top dialogue skills and combat, makes no sense. You have to pay for your superior dialogue skills which may help you get things which can maybe be worth for combat.

Exactly the point is THEY ARE SKILLS if you spend your life training to be a motivational speaker for example it takes practice and time just like anything else.


Compare a DIPLOMAT to a  SOLDIER for example.

[revengeance]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I just want more dialogue choices like in ME1 rather than the significant amount of automatic dialogue in ME2.

-Polite

For sure.

[revengeance]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

Sidney wrote...

FDR and Stalin defeated a dictator, killed thousands of innocent civilians to achiev their ends, built terrible weapons so they're all the same right? So now you wind up in the hands of th FBI or the KGB. Both might threaten you, both might yell at you but, in the end, do you buy that the FBI is gonna put a bullet in your brain if you don't talk? Do you think the KGB will? Yeah, that's the difference in crediblity.

You are not forced to play all or nothing. I sure as heck didn't. You choose to play that way because you have a pre-determined outcome you want to achieve.

Exactly my thoughts, thank you.

As a counterpoint, would you believe the KGB if they tried a "nice guy" path?  Of course not, that's not how they worked.

ME1 allowing you to act like a jerk and still put points into being "charming" was simplistic.  You get to be charming/intimidating by doing, and I like ME2's system of having you become better by doing.

The fact is you get punished if you do not commit to one extreme, there should be many layers in between.