411 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...

Most RPG's progression is linear from noob to hero. Of course there is allways exceptions in all cases.

I have played RPG's for many year, allmost 20, they are my favour playing style. But i'm not blind and think it's perfect how it's done. Too much has been herited from table top RPG's and that doesn't allways really work well in computer games.

And when something is inherited from PnP, it's often the wrong thing. Most PnP games are less focused on inventory than D&D. A large percentage have less emphasis on inventory than ME2.

[AlanC9]

khevan wrote...
In the Mass Effect universe, it should have been done with some form of upgrade system, where for example, Adepts start the game with a bioamp that allows them to use only a couple of powers, and during the game they can get better (and more expensive, which is why the Alliance didn't pay for 'em in the first place...) bioamps that allow them to use more and more powerful powers.

I'd have found this completely implausible if not for the US military's recent failures to provide armor in Iraq. You'd still need a relatively flat progression here -- the top-of-the-line stuff can't be all that much better than what the Alliance put on it's newest showpiece warship. In an ME2 situation, maybe a little less flat.

ME2's persuasion system was schizophrenic, confusing, and limiting to a degree that I disagree with.

Yeah. I'm surprised we don't hear more complaints about that

[Vena_86]

@Lumikki and Phaelducan

Look, I'm not saying it has to be with skills you invest in but there should be ways to customize your Shepard towards your own play style or vision of the character. Mass Effect 2 forces you to play a jack of all trades by combining essential, yet unrelated things such as durability, sprint speed, power cooldown and weapon damage and even persuasion into one single "power". What if you want to play a fast, yet fragile Ninja Shepard? Or a hard to crack behemoth or a Shepard that relies alot on powers for combat. My suggestion only splits up the things that are combined in ME2 to allow focussing on something you choose. If you can not appreciate that and feel the balanced Shepard is just about right for you then simply press auto upgrade and effectively the same happens as when you upgrade the single power in ME2 without more menu work or button presses. It is really just selfish to deny others the ability to customize, eventhough there would be no downside for you.

And I should look at other RPG games? Well how about this little game called Fallout 3. As a RPG with guns; there is nothing closer to ME that I can think of right now. Fallout 3 has a huge array of customization possibilities and I never even saw shooter-only players complain about it. The only problem, that I agree with, is that your own aim was hindered by a accuracy skill and that's something I also not want in ME anymore.

I don't even need to look at other RPGs. Bioshock actually has more character customization than ME2 with it's tonics. You can focus on speed, on durability, on your powers (plasmids) etc. you can try to have a jack of all trades or you can focus on assassine style gameplay. These are things that are good in any game. And it is a shame that a RPG, by a veteran RPG developer has less depth in it's RPG elements than a shooter like Bioshock or a survival horror game like Deep Space.

I don't really care how, if it's traits, upgrades (where you can't have all) but I would like a game where you feel that you are in control without forcing players that don't care about customization into doing things they don't like. This was my idea by the concept of "the easiest way is often the best way". You can argue with the means, but I am convinced that the goals are right.

Modifié par Vena_86, 04 décembre 2010 - 06:03 .

[LURadio]

It's a great job, though I am still completely against having a Persuasion category.....simply because, why do I wanna waste my good points trying to level up Persuasion when I could use it to level up Shockwave lets say. I want my powers, health, and cooldown to be skill tree'd....Persuasion.....earn it, the same way as in 2, maybe with a tweak or two because neither game did it perfectly.

And at the post above mine......while I love Fallout 3, there's just way too much bloody customization in that game, it takes a lot away from the fun and it just becomes tedious and boring after awhile.  If I wanna go somewhere in that game I shouldn't have to be level 1000 with a hundred million HP and AP with guns coming out of my arse or I'm gonna get killed.  In the end though, way too focused on pointless things that game is.

Modifié par LURadio, 04 décembre 2010 - 06:19 .

[Lumikki]

Drop the persuation skill, it's worst skill ever could be introduced, because it's 100% guarantee bypass any negative result is dialogs. Hole point of dialogs options is to get different result, not to get allways optimal result. That's what persuation does.

Power cool down? What if you are solder, what power coold down? Solders use weapons, no skill should ever affect fire rate or accuraty. If you mean other powers, it would be nice if they actually make sense and would fit the class and not be some magical fill ups.

I don't mind few more powers, if they make sense. It's nice to little bit adjust character, but lest keep the focus of the game where it should be, cinematic action roleplaying game in great story. Not to micro-manage every small detail while in missions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 décembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[Vena_86]

LURadio wrote...

It's a great job, though I am still completely against having a Persuasion category.....simply because, why do I wanna waste my good points trying to level up Persuasion when I could use it to level up Shockwave lets say. I want my powers, health, and cooldown to be skill tree'd....Persuasion.....earn it, the same way as in 2, maybe with a tweak or two because neither game did it perfectly.

And at the post above mine......while I love Fallout 3, there's just way too much bloody customization in that game, it takes a lot away from the fun and it just becomes tedious and boring after awhile.  If I wanna go somewhere in that game I shouldn't have to be level 1000 with a hundred million HP and AP with guns coming out of my arse or I'm gonna get killed.  In the end though, way too focused on pointless things that game is.

Points for powers and traits are sperated in this concept (unlike in Mass Effect 1). Actually, the idea comes from Diablo 3.

[Gleym]

Let me put this plainly, since everybody seems convinced that the only reason you'd need skill distribution and leveling up is if you're a "noob": The foe decides the development.

If Shepard is fighting the usual mooks that he faced during his regular tenure as an N7 that he had overcome before, then his abilities would be relevant to such, but in ME1 you're fighting Geth, and another Spectre. THAT is why you level up, and need to grow stronger and more powerful. They're too great an enemy to deal with as you are, so you need to become capable of fighting them. Shepard is never a 'God-like character' because there are always those more powerful than he is that he needs to struggle to overcome. That is the definition of how a character that is a seasoned warrior can start off as a 'level one' in his own game: Because 'level one' is in comparison to the enemy being faced. It's why Shepard is a 'level one' compared to the Collectors at the start of ME2 in spite of kicking ass and taking names in ME1 - they're way more powerful than those he fought before. And it's why Shepard is 'level one' in ME1 fighting the Geth and Saren, in spite of his military record.

And that is why you use skill distribution. Because you are developing skills further and further beyond what you had at the time. Because the people you face may be more stubborn, more intelligent, more cunning, more adept, harder to defeat, harder to sway to your whims. Using more advanced locking devices that need hacking, more advanced and powerful computers that need decoding.

This isn't a rare thing, either. Several of Bioware's own RPGs feature this aspect in games such as Icewind Dale, Baldur's Gate 2, and in the best ever example? Planescape: Torment, where you start off as a character who IS God-like and immortal, but doesn't have access to his power. Hell, the entire course of that game involves you gaining power through conversation, not through combat, because through doing so, you begin to remember the abilities you used to possess. THAT is a true example of an RPG.

And make no mistake, there's other series that do this too. Bioshock 2 features you playing one of the first line of Big Daddy's, more powerful than any other, but you still gotta struggle to the top. Fallout: New Vegas is also an example of this, where as opposed to usually starting out naive and untrained from a Vault, you're a Courier who already actively traveled the Wastelands on delivery runs, meaning you're already experienced in surviving. Hell, even Final Fantasy games feature characters like this, such as Cloud Strife who is a seasoned, high-ranking soldier gone merc, or Zidane Tribal who is actually a very experienced thief.

So you're going to have to excuse me if the reason for not including the option to focus on various talents and skills throughout the course of my game is because "He's already a seasoned warrior, he doesn't NEED to focus on anything" strikes me as a little pathetic and nonsensical. There's ALWAYS room to improve, and it is actually MORE realistic that you shouldn't be able to do everything, but should have to choose what you focus your specializations on.

Modifié par Gleym, 04 décembre 2010 - 06:38 .

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...

Drop the persuation skill, it's worst skill ever could be introduced, because it's 100% guarantee bypass any negative result is dialogs. Hole point of dialogs options is to get different result, not to get allways optimal result. That's what persuation does.

So dialog should be only controlled by the player the same way that ME2 weapon fire is controlled by the p[layer rather than the character's stats or skills?

[Gleym]

Pretty much, AlanC9. Because apparently making a judgement call and having to actually adhere to consequence of choices is gamebreaking and ruins a game's sense of realism and entertainment value.

[Blacklash93]

wizardryforever wrote...

Blacklash93 wrote...

I hope skill points are spent one at a time again for ME3. I don't get why they changed it.

They changed it so that it actually becomes harder to max out skills.  You can't just pour all of your points into one skill and max it out as easily as you could before.  There was really no drawback to doing that in ME1, whereas in ME2, you start to hurt for skill points if you do that too early.  It also seems more realistic, since it is really more difficult to master something than to just become competent at it.  I actually like it better this way.

I don't think it's more realistic. Improving little by little via individual point distribution seems more realistic to me than suddenly making big leaps to becoming a master at something via a 4 tier guage.

And why would distributing points individually be easier? It requires more patience and "pouring all your points" into one skill is no different than saving up for a skill upgrade in ME2. Plus, you won't have those 1 or 2 points left over gone to waste.

[Gleym]

I still don't get how four tiers and four or five skills maximum is 'harder to max out' than having 10+ skills with massive degrees of point distribution spread out all over it. It's like the whole concept of 'difficult' is backwards, except for when it's convenient to say that ME2's system is 'better because it's easier'.

[NvVanity]

Lumikki wrote...

Drop the persuation skill, it's worst skill ever could be introduced, because it's 100% guarantee bypass any negative result is dialogs. Hole point of dialogs options is to get different result, not to get allways optimal result. That's what persuation does.

It would only give optimal results if there was one "Press this to win argument/situation" button. A higher persuasion skill could easily give multiple choices that give different results just like not having one. Fallout New Vegas for example with a high speech skill I could basically take three or four new options for ending a quest rather then the usual good/neutral/evil choice.

[JediMB]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

JediMB wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

I mean, the point of rpgs is character progression

Really, the point of most games is progression. The feeling that you have guided your character to become more powerful is a very satisfying one, and it's an excellent tool to keep the player interested in the game... alongside the story and other game elements.

Take an old FPS like Doom, and it still had this kind of progression, but in the form of acquiring more powerful weapons and better armor. Heck, the game even got rid of all your weapons between episodes, since it would be terribly unsatisfying to play through two thirds of the game with all (or most) weapons already in your possession.

Yes, but with rpgs it's character stats which isn't the case with shooters and other games. It was poorly worded, sorry.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I was just adding that (unlike what some people think) a character somehow progressively growing more powerful is essential to the enjoyment of most kinds of games. No need to apologize.

Modifié par JediMB, 04 décembre 2010 - 10:00 .

[Lumikki]

Gleym wrote...

So you're going to have to excuse me if the reason for not including the option to focus on various talents and skills throughout the course of my game is because "He's already a seasoned warrior, he doesn't NEED to focus on anything" strikes me as a little pathetic and nonsensical. There's ALWAYS room to improve, and it is actually MORE realistic that you shouldn't be able to do everything, but should have to choose what you focus your specializations on.

That wasn't the only reason. The other reason is that it cause same effect what's happening in most mmorpgs. It shifts the focus of the game be more about progression of character than actually enjoyment of the game. You know in mmorpgs this can be noticed as chat. I'm level X, I have item X and so on.. That's not role-playing, that's metagaming or powerplaying. But ability adjust character is more role-playing. Yes, it is, but every action has also consequences. Meaning focus of game is also shifting with it.

Think about Kotor and DAO example , how many times did you start new character because you made wrong "power" choises? That's the problem when character development comes too "important" as complex. It change the focus of the game. Meaning you can't just enjoy playing without worring character attributes and you can't fix that with automatic level up option, because player knows it does wrong choises. So it can force players to do something what they would not want to do. I don't mean that some people don't like the focus shift, because they do, but there is also people who don't like it. So, it has to be more compromise as not too complex or simple.

That's why I have sayed maybe little more powers, but not much, because also many player don't like what it does the game in more general ways. More choises is not allways better nor is less choises allways better. My point is that there is people in this forum who aren't happy how simplifyed ME2 powers where, but other hand there is also people in this forum who did not like the complexity of ME1 powers.  So, it's not so simple situation.

It's question how much gameplay time and how often player is forced to make character power development choises and how well they can just conserate playing the game. Everytime player stops gameplay and adjust character "sheet", it breaks game imression, same way that mission end complete info screen does. That's why in better computer RPG's the system works more like your skills gets better by what you do, not by putting points to skills. Meaning why I can't get better as using my snipper rifle just by using it alot, not to go some steril character sheet to adjust my character points for sniper rifle.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 décembre 2010 - 12:39 .

[Phaelducan]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Phaelducan wrote...

Reputation system? If anything the ME2 system is more immersive and more like an RPG than 1. In one, it was a static point system. X check requires Y points and it was pass/fail. In 2, you are rewarded for playing a certain way in that you get points based on your actions. If you RP a paragon, you get more paragon. If you RP renegade, you get those points. How is that a devolvement?

Because it's a devolvement. You are paragon or not, you don't become one over time. In case you didn't know, alloting points in rpgs means that you get better at something as in real life, and as in real life, you can't be good at everything. I'm not a better persuader because I show myself over time as a more paragon person while I never changed, you're a better persuader when you practice rhethorics and that is a SKILL that has nothing to do with morality. ME2 fails big time on being more immersive and realistic than 1 as well as more of an rpg.

- No, that's not a devolvement. You STILL get points in ME2, they are just allocated based on the decisions you make. The player still chooses when they get points, it's just done via in-game selections of dialog versus a paragon/renegade "skill." Your logic is absurd. Of course you become a paragon over time. You don't start out having made all the "right" choices, you make them over the course of the game. Sorry man, doesn't hold water. 

And you guys seem to go by the definition of western rpgs which is frankly, very broad. First of all, the dialog/cinematic type of thing of ME1/ME2 is mostly a Bioware thing, or western RPG thing, if you look at other rpgs like the Japanese ones, you'd realise a lot of your "core elements which the game doesn't need all of them" are almost non-existent. Basically, what Final Fantasy VII and Mass Effect 2 have the most in common is your character's skills progressing over time, but while ME2... no ME1 allows you to put skill point after killing enough enemies yourself, it's all automated in FFVII. It's automated, but your character still grows and still stays within his specialisation. In ME2, you can't even put skill points! These are not skills but abilities.

Semantics. Points allocated are points allocated. Oblivion doesn't use levels either, but Perks/Skills are just as valid a convention. FFVII? It's all done through materia, and you choose what materia to equip. Everything else is generic. You level, but so what? Level 99 Cloud or Tifa is identical other than what materia they learned and their limit breaks. Again, ME2 is more customizable (no two characters CAN be the same, and two versions of each core ability).

The core element of rpgs is character progression, it's not about choice, not about character talking and such, these are only lesser elements which can make an rpg richer, but the very essential core to every rpg is character progression or stats for short. If you're not agreeing on this, you're telling me that the biggest thing some rpgs have in common may be elements which are present in pretty much every other type of games with main protagonists. And that certainly can't be right, have you played a shooter where you can't shoot? I haven't played an RPG without character progression. If you're telling me the core thing about rpgs is to "role play", well The Sims would be an RPG, any action adventure game and even shooters. You play a role in any game, and shooters like Far Cry 2 lets you customize your character by choosing him and from the countless of different weapons which may drastically change your gameplay, it lets you play a role in a sandbox design too. And again, most JRPGs don't let you even have choices beyond the "which characters will I take with me or with type of sword and/or magic I'm going to bring with me.

ME2 allows character progression, and in a more diverse way than many core RPG games. If you argue that a game is an RPG if your character progresses at all then you include Metroid because you upgrade your suit and weapons? Your definition falls flat. ME2 is an RPG for many reasons, including character progression.

Taking this into consideration, yes ME2 fails spectacularly in having decent RPG elements. No matter how you want ME games to be, they were designed as an RPG/TPS hyprid, if they or you don't care about the core rpg elements, why not drop the whole **** and make a TPS with interactive cutscenes. Hell, an element I consider important to RPGs is doing quests from characters, something ME2 dumbed down A LOT. And no, missions are not quests, the loyalty missions are not real quest as they teleport you in an area designed as a shooter mission with few interactive pieces here and there where all you have to do is to shoot your way through, this is not a quest.

Oh get over yourself. Missions aren't quests? This is absurd. Of course they are quests. You get tasked by an NPC to do something, and get rewarded when you do it. That's a quest. A quest does not have to be open-ended with 7 different ways to complete it to qualify as a quest. If that's your definition, then I guess Bethesda is the only company out there who makes RPG's any more.

[Aurica]

I like what you did here.   Especially the part with persuasion, which I feel is significantly better than the paragon / shepard meters

[Phaelducan]

Vena_86 wrote...

@Lumikki and Phaelducan

Look, I'm not saying it has to be with skills you invest in but there should be ways to customize your Shepard towards your own play style or vision of the character. Mass Effect 2 forces you to play a jack of all trades by combining essential, yet unrelated things such as durability, sprint speed, power cooldown and weapon damage and even persuasion into one single "power". What if you want to play a fast, yet fragile Ninja Shepard? Or a hard to crack behemoth or a Shepard that relies alot on powers for combat. My suggestion only splits up the things that are combined in ME2 to allow focussing on something you choose. If you can not appreciate that and feel the balanced Shepard is just about right for you then simply press auto upgrade and effectively the same happens as when you upgrade the single power in ME2 without more menu work or button presses. It is really just selfish to deny others the ability to customize, eventhough there would be no downside for you.

And I should look at other RPG games? Well how about this little game called Fallout 3. As a RPG with guns; there is nothing closer to ME that I can think of right now. Fallout 3 has a huge array of customization possibilities and I never even saw shooter-only players complain about it. The only problem, that I agree with, is that your own aim was hindered by a accuracy skill and that's something I also not want in ME anymore.

I don't even need to look at other RPGs. Bioshock actually has more character customization than ME2 with it's tonics. You can focus on speed, on durability, on your powers (plasmids) etc. you can try to have a jack of all trades or you can focus on assassine style gameplay. These are things that are good in any game. And it is a shame that a RPG, by a veteran RPG developer has less depth in it's RPG elements than a shooter like Bioshock or a survival horror game like Deep Space.

I don't really care how, if it's traits, upgrades (where you can't have all) but I would like a game where you feel that you are in control without forcing players that don't care about customization into doing things they don't like. This was my idea by the concept of "the easiest way is often the best way". You can argue with the means, but I am convinced that the goals are right.

I don't mean to imply that your goal isn't a good one. I always think more customization is a worthy thing to consider, what I take exception to is the constant deriding of ME2 for not having RPG conventions which it clearly does.

I played and loved Fallout 3, it was one of my favorite games ever (though mostly due to loving 1 and 2). However, I found half the perks to be useless, and the fact that you could max all the skills easily for me made for an inferior progression to ME2. There IS customization options in ME2 to reflect playstyles, they just happen primarily in the class selection phase (although you can't max all your skills, having to choose a couple not to increase and also choosing how to evolve them gives some variation within classes).

The problem is that there is this constant semantic argument about what an RPG is or isn't, and it detracts from the strength of the product. ME1 and 2 are both in my top 5 360 games, and I still play them both long after the achievements are done... and the reason in both cases is the strength of the replay value based on customization. In ME2 the classes play quite differently and it's a blast every time. I would never play FFXIII again, because EVERY TIME YOU PLAY THE GAME IT WILL BE THE SAME. Same with Fable 3. You get you static upgrades, and there is absolutely no variation. With ME2, there are 6 totally different classes with different skills and customization options, and you can even deviate from there (Shotgun Infiltrator for example).

It's just plain untrue that ME2 fails to deliver on the RPG elements. They are there, they are solid, it's just a very vocal minority that feel the need to trash it constantly because it doesn't feel like Dungeons and Dragons.

However, with that said.... you did do a great job exploring concepts and ideas and more customization is almost never a bad thing. I apologize for not acknowledging you effort, I did not mean to imply that I am against any attempt to diversify or deepen the gameplay experience.

It's just irritating to see the constant hating on what is actually a very clean and fun RPG system applied to a non-traditional type of game.

[Vena_86]

Actually I don't care if a game is a traditional RPG or not, really. What we see in the industry right now is merging RPG elements with other genres, specially shooters. Like Johnny Ebbert (lead designer of Dawn of War 2) said, "RPG elements are like cheese, they make everything better."
Many games do this and provider better customization and progression than ME2 which is supposed to be a actual RPG.
Having mentioned Fallout 3 before, I give you an example. At the end of the game you can have a character ranging from a super heavy armored, but slow Space Marine like warrior that fights with miniguns and rocket launchers to a sneaky, fast, lightly armored character that excells at assassination with close combat weapons, pistols and sniper rifles and laying traps (mines).
Customization and progression is lacking in ME2 imo and not be because I'm a fanboy that can't accept new ideas, but because I play the game and feel confined and bored by many things which are not wrong by design but simply not thought through to the end and probably not tested enough or simply by the absence of so much more.
I currently play as a soldier for the first time and I'm actually bored by the lack of diversity and the disability to atleast focus on essential things like speed and powers.
With DLC installed I will play through the whole game with the same overpowered Krestel armor.
I will play through the whole game with the same overpowered DLC weapons.
And I will play through the whole game with only two real powers (adrenaline rush and concussive shot), while most of my squad mates powers are useless most of the time due to the armor, shield, barrier blocking system which is another thing that is good by design but has unfinished, unbalanced implementation (on higher difficulty).
You do the exact same thing from beginning to end in a game that can have over 60 hours of gameplay because there is no meaningfull customization and because there is very limited progression.

If I then compare these mentioned things to BioShock (a shooter), for example, BioShock wins, depite having a completely different approach as the suggested "traits". ME2 is better at other things, but it could be better at everything. BioWare is incredibly talented, but have gone overboard with the oversimplification for the sake of a different audience, which is not as simple minded as EA and developers might think, judging by the success of other already mentioned games.

Modifié par Vena_86, 05 décembre 2010 - 11:46 .

[Beechwell]

I'm not a big fan of a persuasion skill. Let's face it; higher persuation always means more role-play options, nothing else. So it either requires me to limit my character's fighting abilities to enhance the conversation experience, or it forces certain role-playing choices to increase your dialog options in the future - which is even worse.



Rather what I'd like to see is a number of personality traits for Shepard which deterimine how others view him/her, and on occastion open up specific dialog options.

Make Shapard's score in these traits dependent on dialog choices, but make it a zero-sum game, so each increase in a traits reduces your score in other traits. That way, role-playing Shepard a certain way doesn't make for an all around better Shepard, but rather offer alternative options later on.

[Gleym]

So, 'less roleplay, more shooting'. Seriously, I love how you people keep insisting that you're not saying that when every time you open your mouths to naysay, that's exactly what comes out of it. Your rationality is entirely 'I want to be able to kill things effortlessly and all of my skills should be focused on that, and the roleplay should be kept to a minimum, simplistic form that's not just easy for me to use but consists entirely of 'press button, get result', and doesn't require me to make any sort of judgement calls that would compromise my pew-pew gaming.'

Modifié par Gleym, 05 décembre 2010 - 01:57 .

[Phaelducan]

Gleym, stop trolling. Nowhere did I say anything of the sort. YOU are implying that other people have wrong interpretations of what an RPG is, and therefore we want less roleplay. I said, say now, and will continue to say that roleplaying elements are great, more depth is fine, and that Bioware did fine with character progression. Your assumptions are irritating, and incorrect.



To Vena, again with the Fallout 3 reference... by the end of the game you actually aren't either the juggernaut or the stealthy ninja... you are both. You want to play "Take it Back" like a tank? Go put on your t100-b, grab a Vigilance, and go to town. Want to sneaky sneaky? Put on your Chinese Stealth Armor, grab your perforator, and go for that too. Fallout 3 allows you to maximize EVERYTHING and sacrifice nothing... and by fairly early in the game. At least in ME2 you have choices limiting your options. You can't do everything... be definition. I repeat.... in ME2 you can't do everything due to limitations on leveling points.



If you think the DLC gear is too OP, don't use it. I haven't bought a single weapon pack for ME2 because I think they are absurd, so I don't have that issue, but if you do simply use the Revenant or the Widow for your soldier (same as in Fallout 3... where some DLC items literally make the game trivial).



As to only using two abilities? That's on you. You want to use more? Use more. Use ammo powers, give yourself a non-traditional unique... do whatever you want. You make the argument that Bioware didn't give us customization options then admit that you readily ignore the ones inherent in the game. That's fine... but again it's on you to use the material in the game.



Besides... how is that worse then ME1 where you don't need ANY powers and can just take your chosen Spectre X with Tungsten or Shredder VII and a Scram and nuke the ****** out of anything even on Insanity... and you can do that with an Adept if you want.



Look, again I think your ideas are fine, more depth is always a good discussion to have... but this idea that somehow ME2 fails as an RPG because you don't like the options to customize Shep is faulty. The customization options are there, the advancement is there, and the RPG elements are all there. If you don't like them, fine.... but they ARE there.



You should also re-read the last sentence of your post... and then think critically on how well ME2 sold. EA and Bioware know exactly what they are doing, making hit games.

[Vena_86]

Phaelducan wrote...

...

To Vena, again with the Fallout 3 reference... by the end of the game you actually aren't either the juggernaut or the stealthy ninja... you are both. You want to play "Take it Back" like a tank? Go put on your t100-b, grab a Vigilance, and go to town. Want to sneaky sneaky? Put on your Chinese Stealth Armor, grab your perforator, and go for that too. Fallout 3 allows you to maximize EVERYTHING and sacrifice nothing... and by fairly early in the game. At least in ME2 you have choices limiting your options. You can't do everything... be definition. I repeat.... in ME2 you can't do everything due to limitations on leveling points.

If you think the DLC gear is too OP, don't use it. I haven't bought a single weapon pack for ME2 because I think they are absurd, so I don't have that issue, but if you do simply use the Revenant or the Widow for your soldier (same as in Fallout 3... where some DLC items literally make the game trivial).

As to only using two abilities? That's on you. You want to use more? Use more. Use ammo powers, give yourself a non-traditional unique... do whatever you want. You make the argument that Bioware didn't give us customization options then admit that you readily ignore the ones inherent in the game. That's fine... but again it's on you to use the material in the game.

Besides... how is that worse then ME1 where you don't need ANY powers and can just take your chosen Spectre X with Tungsten or Shredder VII and a Scram and nuke the ****** out of anything even on Insanity... and you can do that with an Adept if you want.

Look, again I think your ideas are fine, more depth is always a good discussion to have... but this idea that somehow ME2 fails as an RPG because you don't like the options to customize Shep is faulty. The customization options are there, the advancement is there, and the RPG elements are all there. If you don't like them, fine.... but they ARE there.

You should also re-read the last sentence of your post... and then think critically on how well ME2 sold. EA and Bioware know exactly what they are doing, making hit games.

Well, I never had the impression that you can excell at everything in FO3. If that is so then I maybe have played it with the better mods too much that fix this. This just shows that the opportunities are there by design, it's just not balanced well enough. These opportunities are not present in ME2 and far from optimized in ME1.
As for the abilities (soldier). Ammo powers are no real powers in my books. They are passive buffs with an overcomplicated, tedious implementation. I use all the material in the game, as I try to do with every game. That's why my first playthrough was over 60 hours long.
And how ME1 is any better is not really of my concern. I never said I want ME3 to be a carbon copy of ME1. I think I never even mentioned ME1 in the first post and the menu designs are based on those of ME2. If you take a look at those character screens without the additions then they are just incredible empty, despite the consolish large font size, as if this is just an early alpha build of the game. When I first played it I thought ok, there is going to be more to it later. But no...
As for the DLC equipment (and actually all ME2 equipment), it is a psychological matter for the player. When the game gives you cheats that arn't cheats, you use them because you want to be as good as possible. But you feel uncomfortable with it, specially when you play a character that tries to save the galaxy. Why would Shepard not use better equipment when he/she could and it's "legal"? But that stands in the way of diverse and motivating gameplay. It is up to the developer to balance that out. Not the player.

ME3 is the last game of this amazing trilogy, and thus should come with staying power. That can be accomplished without turning the game into a pen and paper look-alike, as other games throughout different genres demonstrate.
ME1 was flawed but diverse and more than the sum of it's parts.
ME2 was more polished but it's shortcommings became more and more obvious after the initial (great) hours of gameplay. But I think BioWare is aware of that. I can only hope that they actually care too.

[Gleym]

Hate to disappoint you, Phaelducan, because I know that would make it so much easier to dismiss what I'm saying and insist that your way is the only one and everyone else is 'wrong', but I'm not trolling. That's really what I hear whenever you put down all of the mechanics. I'm sorry if you feel that ME2's limited, short-sighted grasp of character progression was great, but there are plenty of people who don't agree with you. Also, how is it, then that your definition of what an RPG is 'more right' than mine, since that seems to be a recurring theme to dismissing anyone who wants more RPG features in an RPG-Shooter: That we ourselves assume to know what an RPG is, implying thus that we don't in fact know, but you do. What is it that makes you 'more right' and us 'wrong'? Your definition? Your personal preferance? How then, are we wrong for having our preferance just because it differs from yours? You liked how it was in ME2. Good for you. I didn't. I don't see why I should have to lose out on something that I, and several others, enjoyed in ME1 just because you disliked it. The general agreement tends to be that ME2 ditched its RPG elements in favor of Shooter ones. Now, whether you agree with this or not, the general majority DOES agree with it. And it's my sincere hope that Bioware actually listens for a change and returns the right RPG elements to this hybrid game in order for it to live up to the 'hybrid' label. If it's at the cost of a handful of people like you who seem to flip out over the idea that you have to make a conscious choice between being good at shooting someone in the face and being good at talking to them, I honestly couldn't care less and think the series would be better for it without people like that.

[Shotokanguy]

 If that weapon screen is your idea for the inventory screen that you can look at at any time, that's the general idea of what I want. Just a simple way to look at and compare the items you're currently carrying and a look at the stats that isn't based on typical RPG numbers.

[AdamNW]

Honestly you lost credibility by having 0-rank Cryo Ammo on a Vanguard.



Joking aside, I prefer ME2's handling of persuasion, but I definitely think it could work with an actual stat. I also think that companions should have limits to their traits to avoid things like Tali being able to take a nuclear explosion or something (as you have Durability on there). Good job on this, btw.