411 réponses à ce sujet

[stonbw1]

Good suggestions, but my impression from comments from BW is that they seem to be very pleased with the setup/style/whatever of ME2. Since ME1 was RPG light and ME2 was less RPG than ME1, do you think that BW will "regress" back to this point system approach? My impression is no; that ship has sailed. I enjoy the rationing of point placement since it increases playability. But I agree there is a drawback: once you upgraded to the highest level, there isn't much reason for diversity (i.e. Spectre Pistol in ME1)

[Vena_86]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...
*sigh*
How is this a carbon copy of every other RPG? This is just splitting up the unrelated values that ME2 combines into one "power", which is totally pointless. Why do you oppose the option to play the game differently, when nothing would really change for you if you where happy with ME2? This was the whole point. Keeping it simple so that nothing changes for those who don't appreaciate roleplaying games, but other atleast have the option to go deeper (yeah lulz).
I am certainly not in the RPG-only-crowd. I have seen the birth of the shooter genre and played pretty much every bigger titles since then. I have played ut2k3 and ut2k4 for years in some top instagib (iCTF, iBR) clans and even founded a very successfull one my self. RPGs have been a much later passion.
I put some thought into what are the most basic things you need to support the most common playstyles without turning into number crunching.
Other than you I am open towards different genres and only want the best mix, the best balance for most people for Mass Effect 3, without forcing anything on anyone. Personally I would like to see more depth and something along the lines of what Escael is suggesting, but I know that BioWare (and EA) are trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Actually I get the impression that you just skimmed over the suggestion and put it into the RPG-elitist box, without even wasting a thought on how something like this would change your game. Because actually it would not change at all if you don't want it to. 

It really sucks when you make the effort of putting things into pictures, because many people can't be bothered to read anymore, but still, wrong and over the top assumptions are made by some trolls.

why is it the rpg guys always want to shout about their "shooter credentials" the moment you bring up their distinctive point of view? the point is: an unnecessary second set of skills certainly would affect gameplay for everyone and you certainly would notice a change in your control behaviour/responsiveness/performance/accuracy/whatever. the aiming system was tried in me1 - it failed so where's the logic in spreading it to other mechanics? ecael's thread does have some good suggestions, and non-one should be second-guessing biowares (or EAs) motives either - there are many facets to the mass effect experience and many ways depth can be added to said experience, in general i would prefer they try new ideas, even at the risk of failure than just include some wish-fulfilment features for a subsect of their audience (you).

I DONT want an accuracy skill for the player character. For f*** sake, how often do I have to repeat that?
And you still have not found the auto-upgrade button apparently. Furthermore, you interpret way too much of the things you don't like into what I am suggesting. I actually thought about how to find a balance for the largest audience, while you only think about your self, yet you accuse me of doing so. It is ironic really.

Since you completely refuse to even percieve any of my arguments and have no clue of what the actual suggestions are, I will just stop responding until you have actual counter arguments for anything.

[The Spamming Troll]

so if ME3 is going to be some combination of ME1, ME2 and ME3, then what deeper RPG elements can we take from the first two and add for a third?

i think adding an inventory is the first step. there always seems to be a surplus of money towards the middle of a game, and nothing to spend it on. buying weapons, armor, health packs, maybe even ME1 weapons and armor mods?!?! adding an inventory really is the basic start of any RPG, isnt it? and ME2 is severely lacking an inventory. guns are fine, they all serve their own function, but armors in ME2 and even ME1 were really really boring.

i think there also needs to be a higher level cap. i dont mean this as in i want to be a level 10000000, my point is that i want to spend more time investing points into my abilities. ME1s XP was great, i really enjoyed leveling up my character. i love that little ringing doodle ME1 makes when you gain a level. not so much in ME2. most of the times i go a few levels even before i realize im not a level 12 anymore.

a story! im looking at you ME2.

i also think crouching should be added, because when im roll playing a sci fi elite soldier trying to save the galaxy, id like to duck behind cover sometimes.

.....also, overheating weapons.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 02 décembre 2010 - 12:53 .

[kregano]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
i think adding an inventory is the first step. there always seems to be a surplus of money towards the middle of a game, and nothing to spend it on. buying weapons, armor, health packs, maybe even ME1 weapons and armor mods?!?! adding an inventory really is the basic start of any RPG, isnt it? and ME2 is severely lacking an inventory. guns are fine, they all serve their own function, but armors in ME2 and even ME1 were really really boring.

I don't think an ME1 style inventory would be good, but having the customization provided by the ME1 inventory for the weapons would be good. I'm not sure how to balance mods and ME2 style upgrades, but there should be some way to avoid the clutter of ME1. All armors need is more pieces that you find in-game on the battlefield.

[Terror_K]

kregano wrote...

I don't think an ME1 style inventory would be good, but having the customization provided by the ME1 inventory for the weapons would be good. I'm not sure how to balance mods and ME2 style upgrades, but there should be some way to avoid the clutter of ME1. All armors need is more pieces that you find in-game on the battlefield.

The best way to balance mods and ME2 style upgrades is to eliminate many of the ME2 style upgrades  and have it so you use the research/upgrade system to research mods once you've found/bought schematics for them. As it stands we have a shallow, unsatisfying and linear research/upgrade system that doesn't offer enough trade-offs and is too easy to God-mod everything without having to make choices, which also results in a complete lack of proper customisation.

The research/upgrade system is actually a good idea, but it's poorly implemented and executed and breaks the game (much like the weapons inventory in ME1 with the Spectre Weapons). What we need to do is have it create mods and upgrades that the player then has to pick and choose rather than it simply auto-uprading everything with no downsides at all. We don't need such mods to be individual, since we can keep the self-replication, but we need the weapons to be more limited so you can't just put everything into them. Basic upgrading should be fine, but beyond that there should be proper mods and modding.

I'd also like to personally see omni-tools and biotic amps come back in some form.

[mattylee10]

Some nice ideas here, especially liking the weapon stat display - clean and simple visualisation of what the weapon is good at.

As for the character stats, I have no problem with them, but I might be biased as a long term stat based role player. Would like to see a stat that allows you to increase the duration of your storm action (along with bringing back the stamina bar). Since you dropped the class passive in favour of the stats I would like to see some sort of class related passive skill to show the characters extra training in that area: for example soldiers get a boost in weapon damage for all weapon types and a boost in melee damage, vanguards get a boost in shotgun/pistol/melee damage and a slight boost to biotics and adepts get a big biotic boost (damage/duration/area of affect) and so on. Fourth level evolution could do something wierd and give a big boost to one weapon type or increased headshot damage or whatever.

[The Spamming Troll]

i dont want to combine ammo powers and weapons into the same category. if the combat in ME3 mostly represents ME2, then ill need ammo mods to take down enemy defenses, and the soldier needs something(id leave heavy weapons soldier exclusive in ME3). i want weapon mods that only effect the weapon itself, like the phalanx laser sight, the locusts silencer, or a scope or whatever. even mod options that are more sci fi-related would be appreciated.



omni tools and bio amps adds to the inventory and thats a good thing. honestly there just needs to be more things to buy, check out, sell, buy something that shoots faster, find out it only works on geth, sell, find a crazy shotgun, startover as vangaurd...........

[Tested-Faythe]

Wizz wrote...

You guys really should read Escael's threads.




All this was done many months ago.

link please??

[Klimy]

Also XP should be reconsidered, because killing 10 Krogans in a small room is very different from killing 2 Vorcha. I don't like getting XP just for completing mission, this takes away the factor of: "Wow, that was a hard battle and here is my reword". RPG always in all nations had XP for killing monsters, even in D&D (pen and pencil version)! This is the core factor of RPG genre.



Also static briefing windows after every mission is a joke, it takes away the atmosphere of the story which is also core factor of RPGs, they could just take a rapport ("Shep saved X and they moved on with a mission") and show just it. But not all the stats like in FPS multiplayer. It really ruins the story and makes the game into the linked multilayer maps with different goals.

[Gundar3]

I just wanna say that I supported this months ago and still do. Good night and good luck.

[Vena_86]

Tested-Faythe wrote...

Wizz wrote...

You guys really should read Escael's threads.
BAM!
All this was done many months ago.

link please??

Great suggestions of Ecael and Terror_K are now linked  in the first post (under persuasion and weapons).

Modifié par Vena_86, 02 décembre 2010 - 10:25 .

[Terror_K]

Vena_86 wrote...

Great suggestions of Ecael and Terror_K are now linked  in the first post (under persuasion and weapons).

Thanks for posting mine too. To be honest though, I actually prefer yours to my own (I think yours both looks better and better represents the weapons and their abilities/strengths). The only thing mine has over yours is the mods being shown, and yours could easily illustrate them in that blank space between the list of weapons and the comparisons or something.

The important thing is that we are able to see the values on the weapons. ME2 not only failed to do this, but  shouldn't have given how much space was wasted and how large and childlike the interfaces were. I mean there's simple, and then there's insultingly oversimple. And overall, what's the harm in showing us the values?

The fact is, there are at least three people who have come up with alternatives in a visual form, not to mention those who have just expressed similar feelings and ideas through purely text. The fact that this is done before isn't something that should discourage this sort of thing and be frowned upon, it should be something that illustrates how badly some of us what a bit more complexity and depth to the systems than ME2 gave us. The fact that you, Ecael and myself have all done this should be a sign to BioWare to perhaps take note and that improvements can and should be made.

Modifié par Terror_K, 02 décembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Klimy]

They should hire you as a consultants for ME3

[yumesama]

 The weapon idea is very good. 
One thing i found with ME1, was that i felt i kept changing my
weapon too often. Not because i found a weapon that i liked 
more, but because the new weapon i found was overall better.

In ME3, i hope there is a little more variety than ME2, but 
specifically in the way of weapons being different instead
of just better in everything. Very much like in the OP's picture.

Dexterity and Agility are things i would NOT like to have, because
it always feel like the main character is overly sluggish in the
beginning of the game (or the entirety, if you want to focus on
other things). A list of traits/perks, on the other hand, in which
you could choose one per level, and one of them was "Agile"
or "Dextrous", e.g. increased your already good running speed,
or let you vault covers much faster, is something i'd like a lot.

As long as there were enough of them to not let you end up with 
all of them, and they were all as meaningful as eachother
(more or less).

The 'persuasion skill' on the other hand, is something i kinda dislike. 
It forces me to either put points in a skill to be able to make more
meaningful choices, or like in ME1, force me to only be able to choose
EITHER paragon or renegade in ALL conversations onwards.

The difference in ME2 is that i can do "normal", "paragon" or "renegade"
options depending on the situation, instead of being annoyed over
options i can't choose, and maybe feel forced to revert to an earlier save
and aquire enough "renegade", "paragon", or "persuasion" points to do
what i want.

So basically: 
Weapons idea? Yay.
Alot more stats to use points on? Nay
Additional "traits"? Yay.

[kregano]

yumesama wrote...

The 'persuasion skill' on the other hand, is something i kinda dislike. 
It forces me to either put points in a skill to be able to make more
meaningful choices, or like in ME1, force me to only be able to choose
EITHER paragon or renegade in ALL conversations onwards.

The difference in ME2 is that i can do "normal", "paragon" or "renegade"
options depending on the situation, instead of being annoyed over
options i can't choose, and maybe feel forced to revert to an earlier save
and aquire enough "renegade", "paragon", or "persuasion" points to do
what i want.

Actually, the Persuasion skill the OP has would allow you to do either Paragon or Renegade if you so choose. All the skill itself does is unlock dialogue options for the left side of the wheel.

[Vena_86]

kregano wrote...

yumesama wrote...

The 'persuasion skill' on the other hand, is something i kinda dislike. 
It forces me to either put points in a skill to be able to make more
meaningful choices, or like in ME1, force me to only be able to choose
EITHER paragon or renegade in ALL conversations onwards.

The difference in ME2 is that i can do "normal", "paragon" or "renegade"
options depending on the situation, instead of being annoyed over
options i can't choose, and maybe feel forced to revert to an earlier save
and aquire enough "renegade", "paragon", or "persuasion" points to do
what i want.

Actually, the Persuasion skill the OP has would allow you to do either Paragon or Renegade if you so choose. All the skill itself does is unlock dialogue options for the left side of the wheel.

Thanks, that is correct. I find the way ME1 was doing it almost as bad as in ME2, because if you want to play effectively then you just invest all in "charm". What I suggest would always give you both options at the same time. It might not be perfect but I am trying to find a way that all options are valid for the player, including the non paragon/renegade choices (for players who don't invest in a persuasive Shepard). There is only one skill for persuasion in total. I have also linked a good alternative from Ecael which would be closer to ME2s approach.
It's all there in the explanation under the pictures... 

I really want to make this clear. This is not about going back to ME1. The basis is, as anyone should be able to see ME2, with some little things added. These things added are not based on "what ME1" did, but on what I think, judging from almost 20 years of gaming, are the most basic pillars for meaningfull character customization, without making it too complex and clunky.

And just because there is an agility "trait", that doesn't mean I want a Shepard without investing in it feel extremely slow, compared to what we have now. Instead it is really about making things even faster for those who want it to be faster and can handle it, allowing a more dynamic and challenging play, taking the vanguards "high risk/high reward concept to a next level. The futures canon could support it, as long as it doesn't go over board.

Modifié par Vena_86, 02 décembre 2010 - 08:07 .

[Terror_K]

Persuasion definitely needs to be fixed for ME3. It's just too damn easy for Shepard to be a master of all trades in ME2, including tech skills when he/she isn't even a tech class thanks to Hacking and Decryption going out the window. A good RPG shouldn't allow such an effortless manner to be good at everything. If one wants to be a great fighter they usually have to hold back on their charisma/dialogue and non-combat skills to do so, and visa versa. In ME2 you can be a badass fighter, great persuader and master hacker and decryptor with no drawbacks. While this was also eventually the case in ME1, it wasn't really until you got into the high levels that this really became the case, and it meant something was either held back or everything was on par for the first three quarters of the game or so.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Persuasion definitely needs to be fixed for ME3. It's just too damn easy for Shepard to be a master of all trades in ME2, including tech skills when he/she isn't even a tech class thanks to Hacking and Decryption going out the window. A good RPG shouldn't allow such an effortless manner to be good at everything. If one wants to be a great fighter they usually have to hold back on their charisma/dialogue and non-combat skills to do so, and visa versa. In ME2 you can be a badass fighter, great persuader and master hacker and decryptor with no drawbacks. While this was also eventually the case in ME1, it wasn't really until you got into the high levels that this really became the case, and it meant something was either held back or everything was on par for the first three quarters of the game or so.

i don't want to be hobbled on dialogue just because i prefer are more combat-oriented class, thanks. i also don't want to have to take certain party member just to accomplish certain menial tasks a la me1. that's regression, not progression.

[Vena_86]

Terror_K and Jebel Krong show two rather opposite preferences of how the game should be, that exist within the community. What I tried to suggest and I'm sure BioWare is looking for is a middel ground between both extremes, because I'm quite sure that ME3 won't be much deeper than that but, atleast the most basic and meaningfull values "durability, speed, powers/abilities" should be customizable and roleplaying should not be limited to the question at the beginning of the game "blue or red?", even if it is in a streamlined way that is nothing like in ME1.

Btw, I think I will make a video that will show how I imagine "agility" would work, because I get the impression most people imagine something completely different than what is suggested.

Modifié par Vena_86, 03 décembre 2010 - 10:07 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

i don't want to be hobbled on dialogue just because i prefer are more combat-oriented class, thanks. i also don't want to have to take certain party member just to accomplish certain menial tasks a la me1. that's regression, not progression.

I think the complete opposite: taking that away is regression and not progression. It's dumbing down, oversimplifying to make to game over-accessible and trivial and defeats the whole purpose of building a character and having classes at all, since all it reduces them to is "how canz I killz things differently from other classez?" and that's about it. It's attitudes like that these days that are the reason RPGs are getting so watered down and simplified to the point of becoming so shallow and tedious and lacking in proper mechanics that you may as well do away with the RPG stuff entirely and just have a story-driven action game.

The thing is, a good RPG should generally provide alternatives or certainly not make things that require certain builds and are crucial. For example, a character who can't pass a persuade attempt on a guard should simply be able to shoot their way through or if they have more tech-based skills go around back and unlock a door to get to their objective. As long as there are alternate ways to get what you need and solve a problem I don't see the issue. If anything, this encourages roleplaying and gives more options. As it stands Shepard is a Gary Stu/Mary Sue who is perfect at everything without weakness, which from both a story and RPG gameplay perspective is frankly a little much.

Also, note that I suggested a method recently to bring back hacking and decryption in a manner that benefits tech classes more while not actually shutting out non-tech based ones, by simply having it so that classes that have the skills can simply make things easier for the player to the point of eliminating the mini-games entirely if the player so chooses. It involves more streamlining in a way, but also brings back the two skills in a more meaningful way, so I'd like to think that it provides both depth and more ease of use to the player. I'm not 100% happy with the idea, since I feel it partially simplifies the game further in a way, but I feel it's a fair compromise.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

i don't want to be hobbled on dialogue just because i prefer are more combat-oriented class, thanks. i also don't want to have to take certain party member just to accomplish certain menial tasks a la me1. that's regression, not progression.

I think the complete opposite: taking that away is regression and not progression. It's dumbing down, oversimplifying to make to game over-accessible and trivial and defeats the whole purpose of building a character and having classes at all, since all it reduces them to is "how canz I killz things differently from other classez?" and that's about it. It's attitudes like that these days that are the reason RPGs are getting so watered down and simplified to the point of becoming so shallow and tedious and lacking in proper mechanics that you may as well do away with the RPG stuff entirely and just have a story-driven action game.

The thing is, a good RPG should generally provide alternatives or certainly not make things that require certain builds and are crucial. For example, a character who can't pass a persuade attempt on a guard should simply be able to shoot their way through or if they have more tech-based skills go around back and unlock a door to get to their objective. As long as there are alternate ways to get what you need and solve a problem I don't see the issue. If anything, this encourages roleplaying and gives more options. As it stands Shepard is a Gary Stu/Mary Sue who is perfect at everything without weakness, which from both a story and RPG gameplay perspective is frankly a little much.

Also, note that I suggested a method recently to bring back hacking and decryption in a manner that benefits tech classes more while not actually shutting out non-tech based ones, by simply having it so that classes that have the skills can simply make things easier for the player to the point of eliminating the mini-games entirely if the player so chooses. It involves more streamlining in a way, but also brings back the two skills in a more meaningful way, so I'd like to think that it provides both depth and more ease of use to the player. I'm not 100% happy with the idea, since I feel it partially simplifies the game further in a way, but I feel it's a fair compromise.

it's not though, is it. mass effect has never been the "stats and dice" type rpg, despite certain parts of the audience's wishes. mass effect gets it's complexity from the blending of genres and - particularly - the characters and character interactions moreso than inventory and statistics - always has done. taking unneeded parts away is not "dumbing down" - you don't need to force arbitrary mechanics and arbitrary compromises on players just to make things seem more difficult - that is limiting, not liberating. games (not just rpgs) should be about empowering the player, not restricting them to specific bullet points based on prejudged little class-boxes.

the TPS-style combat, for example, is nothing like what you'd find in other rpgs and has it's own complexity (if you choose to use it), it doesn't need an extra layer of tacked-on rpg mechanics to ruin its fluidity. you don't need an ammo mechanic to make it difficult, you need better AI, more enemies, varied environments that can be exploited by both.

where i'd like to see more change is in the character interactions - not gimmicky things like DA's convos and then "get out of jail free" gifts - have more complex relationships: ****** people off, kill them, make them leave, bring them back, romance, alliances, enemies & friends. with the conversation system they already have and even more dynamicity it could be epic and enough depth and roleplay to satisfy everyone (at both ends of the spectrum).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 03 décembre 2010 - 12:08 .

[Gleym]

You keep saying 'blending genres', but every time you talk about the things that would make Mass Effect a true blend like stats distribution, you want to get rid of it. Pretty much, you hate RPG mechanics because you hate the idea of actually having to put some thought into building your character. You might feel that being able to do EVERYTHING at the press of a single button is fun, but I happen to find it horrendously boring to be able to achieve everything. No matter how you choose to spin it, removing things like stats and skill focuses does NOT improve the diversity and creativity of a game: it stifles it.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

i don't want to be hobbled on dialogue just because i prefer are more combat-oriented class, thanks. i also don't want to have to take certain party member just to accomplish certain menial tasks a la me1. that's regression, not progression.

I think the complete opposite: taking that away is regression and not progression. It's dumbing down, oversimplifying to make to game over-accessible and trivial and defeats the whole purpose of building a character and having classes at all, since all it reduces them to is "how canz I killz things differently from other classez?" and that's about it. It's attitudes like that these days that are the reason RPGs are getting so watered down and simplified to the point of becoming so shallow and tedious and lacking in proper mechanics that you may as well do away with the RPG stuff entirely and just have a story-driven action game.

The thing is, a good RPG should generally provide alternatives or certainly not make things that require certain builds and are crucial. For example, a character who can't pass a persuade attempt on a guard should simply be able to shoot their way through or if they have more tech-based skills go around back and unlock a door to get to their objective. As long as there are alternate ways to get what you need and solve a problem I don't see the issue. If anything, this encourages roleplaying and gives more options. As it stands Shepard is a Gary Stu/Mary Sue who is perfect at everything without weakness, which from both a story and RPG gameplay perspective is frankly a little much.

Also, note that I suggested a method recently to bring back hacking and decryption in a manner that benefits tech classes more while not actually shutting out non-tech based ones, by simply having it so that classes that have the skills can simply make things easier for the player to the point of eliminating the mini-games entirely if the player so chooses. It involves more streamlining in a way, but also brings back the two skills in a more meaningful way, so I'd like to think that it provides both depth and more ease of use to the player. I'm not 100% happy with the idea, since I feel it partially simplifies the game further in a way, but I feel it's a fair compromise.

it's not though, is it. mass effect has never been the "stats and dice" type rpg, despite certain parts of the audience's wishes. mass effect gets it's complexity from the blending of genres and - particularly - the characters and character interactions moreso than inventory and statistics - always has done. taking unneeded parts away is not "dumbing down" - you don't need to force arbitrary mechanics and arbitrary compromises on players just to make things seem more difficult - that is limiting, not liberating. games (not just rpgs) should be about empowering the player, not restricting them to specific bullet points based on prejudged little class-boxes.

the TPS-style combat, for example, is nothing like what you'd find in other rpgs and has it's own complexity (if you choose to use it), it doesn't need an extra layer of tacked-on rpg mechanics to ruin its fluidity. you don't need an ammo mechanic to make it difficult, you need better AI, more enemies, varied environments that can be exploited by both.

where i'd like to see more change is in the character interactions - not gimmicky things like DA's convos and then "get out of jail free" gifts - have more complex relationships: ****** people off, kill them, make them leave, bring them back, romance, alliances, enemies & friends. with the conversation system they already have and even more dynamicity it could be epic and enough depth and roleplay to satisfy everyone (at both ends of the spectrum).

They're not blending genres if they take all the elements that make up one of these genre. If you don't want to role-play, there's other, non "rpg-ish" shooters out there, why stick with an "hybrid".

RPGs aren't about empowering the player, if you think so, you completely miss the point. It's about role-playing, making CHOICES with CONSEQUENCES. If you can always excel at everything or get everything, you have no choice and even less consequences for these choices. If you're playing such a game like ME2 and want to excel in everything, why bother keeping a dialogue system or classes? Why not just a shooter with fancy cutscenes? Why the hell keep a dialogue system if you want to always be able to choose the top answer? This is not what RPGs are about, it's about creating a character and making choices on what TYPE of character you want. No one can be masters at everything, if you want to be a master at persuasion you obviously have to be less good at other things, there's no way around it. Again, if you don't like attributing skill points stop playing rpgs, the more meaningful skill points the more depth the game has. The more choice, the more power to make whichever type of character you want and certainly more replay value and more different experiences for those other playthroughs.

Again, there's no point of keeping any of the small rpg elements in the series if you think they're just a bother anyway, problem is, the Mass Effect series were told to be a rpg/shooter hybrid. This means: a RPG with shooter gameplay. Take Oblivion replace swords and crossbows with guns and you get a rpg/shooter hybrid, Mass Effect 2 is far from that. Take persuation skills, any skills that can make different characters, and you're left without ANY RPG element. Again, if RPG elements bores you, Mass Effect shouldn't be for you, so don't try to convince us Mass Effect should just be a dumbed down Gears of War in a more interesting universe with fancy dialogue with no real choices to them (ie. a cutscene). Because really, while the shooting of ME2 is far better than in ME1, it still sucks if you see it purely from a shooter gameplay perspective.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Gleym wrote...

You keep saying 'blending genres', but every time you talk about the things that would make Mass Effect a true blend like stats distribution, you want to get rid of it. Pretty much, you hate RPG mechanics because you hate the idea of actually having to put some thought into building your character. You might feel that being able to do EVERYTHING at the press of a single button is fun, but I happen to find it horrendously boring to be able to achieve everything. No matter how you choose to spin it, removing things like stats and skill focuses does NOT improve the diversity and creativity of a game: it stifles it.

Exactly, this is NOT role-playing, thus ME wouldn't be an hybrid like he says it is/should be.

[Schneidend]

For a "rough sketch," this looks like some good stuff. I think it's missing a few traits that class skills uniquely covered, but other than that it's quite cool as a basic idea for what Bioware should think about.

The weapon stat breakdown is beautiful, though. I think that would work perfectly when combined with my inventory suggestions.