461 réponses à ce sujet

[Matt VT Schlo]

I dont mind more shooter elements, but if there are less RPG elements, I'll be severely pissed off....I really want them to reincorporate the dialogue options as a talent - lots of times, I found that to be the most valuable talent to have.



Felt too easy to kick ass in ME2

[Lunatic LK47]

Autolycus wrote...

What I meant by my comment was, they put a lot of time and development into the new system and removing the pointless 'rpg' stuff from ME1, they really are not going to waste time and money converting it back, or even making a new system altogether...
They will keep it as it is, which means more time for story, animations, content etc etc. Again, I may be in the minority, but I thought ME2 was all the better for losing those things from ME1.

This. Mass Effect 2's data imports suffered with cut import content just because much of the time was spent on trying to make the gameplay better. I want my Mass Effect 1 and 2 choices to ****ing matter.

[stuboy52]

i agree with autolycus if we think logically from a developers point of view then we get a clearer picture as i personally loved me1 and me2 but me2 was both longer for me to complete which is saying something when in the frist one so much time was wasted just going through your inventory clearing room for all the items you didnt want. it simple me2 was more simple but had no frustration so they could give us a longer story overall and better gamplay and graphics which is what i hope they keep with ME3

[stuboy52]

lunatic lk47 with regards to importing your choices me2 is one of the first games i've seen that does that with the story sure its not perfect but compared to the competition its a huge step for story based games but we have to see that the devs have to consider huge amounts of possible choices so overcourse some that should have mattered werent given their due but i dont blame the devs as it must have been a mammoth of a task.

[Lunatic LK47]

stuboy52 wrote...

lunatic lk47 with regards to importing your choices me2 is one of the first games i've seen that does that with the story sure its not perfect but compared to the competition its a huge step for story based games but we have to see that the devs have to consider huge amounts of possible choices so overcourse some that should have mattered werent given their due but i dont blame the devs as it must have been a mammoth of a task.

Thing is there are other games that did the data transfer well for the gameplay perspective (i.e. Shenmue for the Dreamcast and .Hack for the PS2 [I mean the main series, not the G.U. spin-offs], and Golden Sun for the Game Boy Advance allowed you to import your stats and allowed you to start off strong up to the point using the data import was mandatory for playing in the sequels, encouraging gamers to actually power-level to the max just so they don't have to do the same old **** for the sequels . Wish BioWare adopted this approach.). You also have to consider that they wanted a stand-alone game just so the n00bs can get into the series. I hate to tell you this, but I bought the Mass Effect series for the trilogy aspect alone, not three stand-alone games with the same title. Sure, Mass Effect may be the first series where our choices may impact the sequels, but on the other hand, we already have major-dealing import bugs that really took us out of the series (i.e. Conrad Verner for starters? Citadel Consort Bug? The "Biotic hostages at science base" bug?)

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 12 février 2011 - 11:35 .

[AlanC9]

rubyreader wrote...

I don't quite understand that dichotomy as an argument. I understand where it comes from, in response to where people state a desire to return to ME1, but it's not much of an argument. Yes ME1's inventory was clunky, but the oodles of other RPG's with better inventory systems would suggest it's not impossible to improve it without eliminating it. I mean are weapon mods that require more tradeoffs like what was built into the weapons in ME2 such a bad thing? Or armor anythings?

Well, saying that it's possible for an inventory system to suck les than ME1's did isn't much of an argument in favor of inventory either.

Perhaps a deep (overly is a much more subjective contention) inventory system isn't core tenet, but I'd argue at the least it is a genre convention.

In CRPGs, anyway. But so what? Genre conventions shoudl be followed because.....

For me, if we are already accepting that for some reason Shep doesn't have access to the best gear immediately and he is piecing diverse techs together to improve his stuff, then there is little reason to accept why he can't mod his gear to his specs as he sees fit and limited by only what feasibly exists in universe (ie beam weapons are largely offlimits to nonReaper associates). 

I don't even want to accept the first part of that. ME2 didn't go far enough in removing gear management.

[Tasker]

Chaos Gate wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

IMO they need alot more Mass Effect and alot less Mass Effect 2 in ME3.

ME was an RPG, with your character's skills and progression having a direct effect on the game. It featured an open, explorable universe with a compelling story and meaningfull interaction with NPC's.

ME2 was a horrible shooter, completely dependent on the Player's skills for all aspects, with a dodgy inconsistent story, no opportunity for character development or customization, and blaring "Level finished!" screens just in case you missed the fact that they had turned it into Doom with a story. No exploration, the existing systems removed to be replaced with an absolutely horrid "Scanning" mini-game instead of being developed to reduce/remove flaws.

If they want to sell me a copy of ME3, they're going to have to make an RPG this time. Which means alot more ME in the game. They tricked me out of $60 last time, this time I'll be waiting for the Player Reviews before I buy. I buy Bioware games to play RPGs, if I want shooters, I'm going to be looking to ID, Valve, Visceral, Bungie, and Epic. Bioware's shooter made it very obvious to me that they shouldn't be doing shooters.

My sentiments exactly.

To me, ME2 was just a dumb shooter with sex scenes, and I've never been so disappointed with a game in my life. My expectations were so high after the first ME, which was brilliant, and to have them dashed like that made me feel completely dudded by Bioware.

I sincerely hope that ME3 is more like ME and not like ME2, or else I won't be buying it.

Yep. Me too.

Gone are the days when I would blindly run out and preorder a game just because it had "Bioware" on it.

It used to be that having "Bioware" on the outside of the box, meant that the game inside was of the highest quality. Sadly, those days seem to be long gone.

I was suckered into buying ME2 because despite my prerelease misgivings, I was expecting a sequel to ME1.

What I got instead was the standard Bioware conversation system, tagged onto a sub-par generic third person on rails shooter with a mediocre almost non existant plot, that just happened to be based in the same gaming universe as ME1.

ME2 has about as much relation to ME1 as Halo Wars has to Halo 3.
 

Modifié par Orkboy, 13 février 2011 - 12:36 .

[rubyreader]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

rubyreader wrote...

I don't quite understand that dichotomy as an argument. I understand where it comes from, in response to where people state a desire to return to ME1, but it's not much of an argument. Yes ME1's inventory was clunky, but the oodles of other RPG's with better inventory systems would suggest it's not impossible to improve it without eliminating it. I mean are weapon mods that require more tradeoffs like what was built into the weapons in ME2 such a bad thing? Or armor anythings

Problem with the trade-offs is it devolves into "Take mods that have more plus than minuses." Can you tell me with a straight face that you'll install a mod that will say "You'll get more damage, but your weapon will overheat faster and reduce your accuracy?" I always sold high explosive rounds every ****ing time because it made my weapons useless after firing three rounds.

rubyreader wrote...

I mean yes having to sell everything off was tedious, eliminate it by just degrading everything to omni-gel, done and done. If you want to recall something, have it refabricated, but then obviously with the limit that you need to have the specs for it. Heck even do away with the looting of bodies since we are streamlining everything.

Uh, omni-gelling is just as tedious and it is big enough to fill a weapons cache in Afghanistan (i.e. Parking-lot sizes)

That was THOSE mods. Again like with the inventory system in general, just because it wasn't great shakes in ME1 doesn't mean that the only other solution is to throw everything out. Plenty of modern RPG's have shown you can have a compelling mod system in gear without it being as problematic. Also yes in general you will get more plusses. OTO there are tradeoffs, the Carniflex for example. I use that the moment I get it, but yeah it's a huge tradeoff, especially as I usually play Infiltrator and my main gun is already so ammo limited. Some people swear off it, but for how I play power per shot matters more than even overall DPS as I'm going for rapid kills once I'm exposed. That's the kind of tradeoffs I want to be able to make to the gear. But I want to be able to choose it more like in Fallout New Vegas, though admitedly without silencing in Mass Effect much of that degree of modding is wasted.


Re:Omni-gel. You misunderstand my point, I wasn't clear here and I apologize. EVERYTHING would be reduced to omnigel AUTOMATICALLY, or whatever they'll call it. It would never be realized as a holding pattern for ten million guns. It just basically becomes another currency in which you convert to your gear of choice, limited by what schematics and perhaps what fab techniques you have at your disposal. IE perhaps uber high end stuff DOES require a great deal of investiture just to have the right equipment to make it, might then allow for regulation of weapons so you don't start you with a Hackmaster +12 without having the semi weird thing of why I'm starting out with basic issue gear when I'm tasked with saving the galaxy. Which we can then replace the oodles of mineral searching that we currently have. Because THAT is tedious.

Modifié par rubyreader, 13 février 2011 - 01:39 .

[rubyreader]

AlanC9 wrote...

rubyreader wrote...

I don't quite understand that dichotomy as an argument. I understand where it comes from, in response to where people state a desire to return to ME1, but it's not much of an argument. Yes ME1's inventory was clunky, but the oodles of other RPG's with better inventory systems would suggest it's not impossible to improve it without eliminating it. I mean are weapon mods that require more tradeoffs like what was built into the weapons in ME2 such a bad thing? Or armor anythings?

Well, saying that it's possible for an inventory system to suck les than ME1's did isn't much of an argument in favor of inventory either.

Perhaps a deep (overly is a much more subjective contention) inventory system isn't core tenet, but I'd argue at the least it is a genre convention.

In CRPGs, anyway. But so what? Genre conventions shoudl be followed because.....

For me, if we are already accepting that for some reason Shep doesn't have access to the best gear immediately and he is piecing diverse techs together to improve his stuff, then there is little reason to accept why he can't mod his gear to his specs as he sees fit and limited by only what feasibly exists in universe (ie beam weapons are largely offlimits to nonReaper associates). 

I don't even want to accept the first part of that. ME2 didn't go far enough in removing gear management.

To each their own, obviously not important to you or possibly even a negative so we'll have to leave it at that.

EDIT - Re: genre conventions, didn't say they had to be followed, only that they exist.

stuboy52 wrote...

i agree with autolycus if we think
logically from a developers point of view then we get a clearer picture
as i personally loved me1 and me2 but me2 was both longer for me to
complete which is saying something when in the frist one so much time
was wasted just going through your inventory clearing room for all the
items you didnt want. it simple me2 was more simple but had no
frustration so they could give us a longer story overall and better
gamplay and graphics which is what i hope they keep with ME3

ME2's solution isn't the only one. That's all I'm saying. Heck the existence, let alone the mega successes, of games like Diablo suggest very much that loot busting inventories can be almost the focus of a game if they are done well. That might not be your cup of tea, but no one can really argue that they aren't other people's.

Modifié par rubyreader, 13 février 2011 - 01:27 .

[Lunatic LK47]

rubyreader wrote...



That was THOSE mods. Again like with the inventory system in
general, just because it wasn't great shakes in ME1 doesn't mean that
the only other solution is to throw everything out. Plenty of modern
RPG's have shown you can have a compelling mod system in gear without it
being as problematic.

Can you please name a few titles? Alpha Protocol and Mass Effect 1 screamed "How to *NOT* do inventory." KOTOR 1 had a better inventory than Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age combined.

Also yes in general you will get more plusses. OTO there are tradeoffs,
the Carniflex for example. I use that the moment I get it, but yeah
it's a huge tradeoff, especially as I usually play Infiltrator and my
main gun is already so ammo limited. Some people swear off it, but for
how I play power per shot matters more than even overall DPS as I'm
going for rapid kills once I'm exposed. That's the kind of tradeoffs I
want to be able to make to the gear. But I want to be able to choose it
more like in Fallout New Vegas, though admitedly without silencing in
Mass Effect much of that degree of modding is wasted.

Okay, just re-read your earlier post and I apparently mis-understood you. The trade-offs I was against is just the weapon mod aspect from Alpha
Protocol where out of two dozen weapon mods, only three are remotely useful (i.e. the weapon mod *ITEMS*).  That's the system I'm completely against. ME1
had a ****load of useless items not just with half of the mods, but the
items themselves are **** just because A. They're either Fugly, or B.
They're ****ing useless in functionality. or C. Both A & B combined
Can you tell me with a straight face you'll equip the Avenger assault
rifle when you have no accuracy with the weapon, regardless of skill
training? Can you tell me with a straight face you'll wear an ERCS-made
armor when it's obviously inferior to your starting equipment?  Don't
even get me started on the armor limitations with "U can only wear light
armor, so we will screw u by giving u nothing but medium or heavy
armor."

Just my playstyle regarding the trade-offs (just my
personal experience): I normally take DPS just because I'd rather have
more available rounds when I need it. I am not
the "uber Delta Force" marksman that can kill enemies with one shot per
kill on a consistent basis, and the amount of rounds I pick up from the
Thermal Clips is outright pitiful (Namely, Carnifex, Vindicator, and
Mattock come to mind just in my case) , making me pick nothing but
weapons with the biggest amount of ammo capacity.

Re:Omni-gel.
You misunderstand my point. EVERYTHING would be reduced to omnigel
automatically. It would never be realized as a holding pattern for ten
million guns. It just basically becomes another currency in which you
convert to your gear of choice, limited by what schematics and perhaps
what fab techniques you have at your disposal. IE perhaps uber high end
stuff DOES require a great deal of investiture just to have the right
equipment to make it, might then allow for regulation of weapons so you
don't start you with a Hackmaster +12 without having the semi weird
thing of why I'm starting out with basic issue gear when I'm tasked with
saving the galaxy. Which we can then replace the oodles of mineral
searching that we currently have. Because THAT is tedious.

I'm a bit lost on your proposed idea here, so feel free to clear up. Are you suggesting for omni-gel to make a return so we can fabricate our new equipment? If yes, how do we exactly gain the omni-gel?

[Lumikki]

I don't know why OP is even asking. Both Mass Effect games where hybrid games and had part of RPG. So, of course ME3 is also hybrid and has partly RPG. Bioware has allready sayed that they will improve the "RPG" aspects in ME3, compared to ME2. So, why you people keep spaming these idiotic subjects. When we allready know the answer. Also only idiot would think that ME3 will be like ME1.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 février 2011 - 02:18 .

[AlanC9]

rubyreader wrote...
ME2's solution isn't the only one. That's all I'm saying. Heck the existence, let alone the mega successes, of games like Diablo suggest very much that loot busting inventories can be almost the focus of a game if they are done well. That might not be your cup of tea, but no one can really argue that they aren't other people's.

Well, if that's all you're saying, then sure. But I'm not here to worry about what other people like.

What I am here for is to talk about what we mean when we talk about Bio "improving" the RPG aspects for ME3. I can't think of anything good that more loot would do for ME3, and I can see a bunch of ways that it might make the game worse.

[Gatt9]

Autolycus wrote...

What I meant by my comment was, they put a lot of time and development into the new system and removing the pointless 'rpg' stuff from ME1, they really are not going to waste time and money converting it back, or even making a new system altogether...
They will keep it as it is, which means more time for story, animations, content etc etc. Again, I may be in the minority, but I thought ME2 was all the better for losing those things from ME1.

See here's the problem...

When you're making an RPG,  the "Rpg stuff" isn't pointless,  it's kinda necessary.  As in,  impossible to remove without making a really crappy game,  which unsurprisingly,  is exactly what happened when they removed it.

An RPG system can be many things,  it can be AD&D based,  it can be pseudo-hybridized ala ME and Deus Ex*,  it can be levelless,  it can be character skill based (Fallout, ME, Asheron's Call, KotOR).

What it can't be is a shooter.  That's a different type of game.  Nothing wrong with shooters,  I like them as much as the next guy.  What I don't like is someone packaging a really bad one in a box labelled "RPG" and as a sequel to an RPG. 

Strangely,  it is exactly that "Pointless RPG stuff" that have made Diablo and even Pokemon the huge-selling series they are,  the sales figures Bioware aspires to.  So apparently those things aren't all that pointless.

*Hybrids are actually a myth.  All a hybrid is,  is a FPS with it's interface intentionally crippled to give the illusion of being an RPG.  RPG conventions like leveling are used to progress the game to full FPS.  At some finite point,  the RPG aspects become irrelevant as the Player's skill supercedes the effect of the crippled interface,  and at that point it becomes almost entirely an FPS.  Don't get me wrong,  this type of game can be enjoyable (Mass Effect,  Deus Ex,  No One Lives Forever),  but the actual theory of a "Hybrid" is a fallacy pushed by marketing departments trying to capture as many customers as possible.  It would be more correct to say that it's a "Progressive FPS" where progressive indicates that the player will experience the effect of "Learning" the required weapon skills.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

rubyreader wrote...
ME2's solution isn't the only one. That's all I'm saying. Heck the existence, let alone the mega successes, of games like Diablo suggest very much that loot busting inventories can be almost the focus of a game if they are done well. That might not be your cup of tea, but no one can really argue that they aren't other people's.

Well, if that's all you're saying, then sure. But I'm not here to worry about what other people like.

What I am here for is to talk about what we mean when we talk about Bio "improving" the RPG aspects for ME3. I can't think of anything good that more loot would do for ME3, and I can see a bunch of ways that it might make the game worse.

The good it would do is restore character customization and de-emphasize the shooter aspects.  There's no way it would make the game worse,  because to be quite honest,  ME2 was one of the worst games I've played since Battlecruiser 3000AD.  Bioware should not be trying to make shooters,  they need to stick with RPGs. 

[Zeus_Deus]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Hate to burst your bubble, Terror, but while playing ME2 I actually found myself thinking a lot more carefully about how to distribute my skill points, what weapons to equip, what squadmates to bring, what quest order I should take, what "moral decisions" I should make, and how I should tactically approach each mission.

There was less stuff, sure, but it was smarter stuff, IMO.  I barely had to think at all in ME1--everything just took longer.

ME2's not perfect, of course: the universe felt too small and boxed in, there weren't enough customization options, the levels were too linear, exploration and planet scanning took up too much time and money, etc.  However, I never felt like it was "baby's first" RPG.  In fact, it was a very cerebral and rewarding experience for me.  You can pitch a fit about how ME2 was "dumbed down," but I sure as hell don't agree with you.

But I'll be the first to admit that the recruit-loyalty-repeat structure and Spandex in Space need to go.

I had the complete opposite experience and found myself thinking more in ME1.

For example:

In ME1, you had more skills to distribute points across and these really did affect the character throughout the game, not just in combat. So logically, this aspect of ME1 requires more thought.

In ME1 you had a greater variety of weapons and armour, each with their own trade-offs. ME2 had less variety and no-stats - therefore no thinking required, just trial and error; try a weapon and if you don't like it, reload a save and use a different one.

The other stuff about squad-mates, quest order, morality etc are pretty much the same across both games.

[Zeus_Deus]

Val Seleznyov wrote...

The lack of an inventory doesn't have any real bearing on the rpg elements. Fretting over which upgrade to use isn't playing a role, it's micro-management. Having completed the first Mass Effect without switching my upgrades on the hardest difficulty led me to believe that it's completely unnecessary.

With ME2, the weapons behaved in different ways so it required much more in the way of thought to decide on a loadout at the start of a mission.

The convulted inventory system just got in my way to play as Shepard in ME1, and the level up was needlessly hefty. The sharper ME2 is system is preferable.

My experience was different.

I was able to complete ME2 (Insanity) using just the M-15 Vindicator rifle, M-92 Mantis sniper and M-100 Grenade launcher, does that mean all the other weapons are unnecessary too?

I also don't understand why people say it takes so much thought deciding on a loadout for each mission.
What's there to think about when there's no stats to compare LOL?

Actually, truth be told, I did sneak onto the Wiki to check some weapon stats, but that just demonstrates one of the fails of the game i.e. People want stats to know how their weapons compare.

[Zeus_Deus]

StElmo wrote...

While loot is cool. It is only cool in non-linear worlds. I just don't see the point in having chests you can't open in Mass Effect, if the level is going to be "move from point A to point B", which is what allows ME to be so cinematic.

I like role playing elements that effect combat, but I really don't want finding loot and having to manage weapons etc. when it's such a linear game.

If it was an open world game, you would think RPG elements would work better, because you would have to plan the adventure your self. But seeing as Mass Effect is an open game packaged as linear missions, RPG elements feel like boring chores, then explorative adventures.

If that makes sense?

ME2 was perfect except for the mining and the lack of Mako-esque missions.

Hammerhead missions sucked.

Give me Mako anyday, just make them less repetitive and make the terrain more forgiving.

[Zeus_Deus]

Nachituy wrote...

Saying that mass effect 2 is not an rpg because it dosent have inventory or more skills/xp , its like saying a car game is not a car game because it dosent have a cockpit view

By the definition of rpg , me2 falls as a pure rpg , dose it have all the extra stuff as other rpg ? no it dosent , that dosent make it less of an rpg , but it will be nice if me3 have more stuff we can customize

Saying that ME2 is a pure RPG because it has dialog options is like saying an FPS is a beat em-up because you have hand-to-hand/melee options.

Modifié par Zeus_Deus, 13 février 2011 - 05:11 .

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

The good it would do is restore character customization and de-emphasize the shooter aspects.  There's no way it would make the game worse,  because to be quite honest,  ME2 was one of the worst games I've played since Battlecruiser 3000AD.  Bioware should not be trying to make shooters,  they need to stick with RPGs. 

There is many ways to increase customation without bringing back the problems what ME1 had. ME1 had two major problem, inventory system and weapon based combat.

Mass Effect serie is NOT just RPG or shooter, it's hybrid as cinematic action RPG with TPS combat. If You can't tell the difference then you are blind.

When you own Bioware you can start to say what they can and can't make. As long Bioware makes good games, I don't think there is reason to complain what kind of games they make or to who those games are targeted. So, you aren't ME2's target customer, get over it, because many are.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 février 2011 - 04:33 .

[rubyreader]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

rubyreader wrote...



That was THOSE mods. Again like with the inventory system in
general, just because it wasn't great shakes in ME1 doesn't mean that
the only other solution is to throw everything out. Plenty of modern
RPG's have shown you can have a compelling mod system in gear without it
being as problematic.

Can you please name a few titles? Alpha Protocol and Mass Effect 1 screamed "How to *NOT* do inventory." KOTOR 1 had a better inventory than Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age combined.

Also yes in general you will get more plusses. OTO there are tradeoffs,
the Carniflex for example. I use that the moment I get it, but yeah
it's a huge tradeoff, especially as I usually play Infiltrator and my
main gun is already so ammo limited. Some people swear off it, but for
how I play power per shot matters more than even overall DPS as I'm
going for rapid kills once I'm exposed. That's the kind of tradeoffs I
want to be able to make to the gear. But I want to be able to choose it
more like in Fallout New Vegas, though admitedly without silencing in
Mass Effect much of that degree of modding is wasted.

Okay, just re-read your earlier post and I apparently mis-understood you. The trade-offs I was against is just the weapon mod aspect from Alpha
Protocol where out of two dozen weapon mods, only three are remotely useful (i.e. the weapon mod *ITEMS*).  That's the system I'm completely against. ME1
had a ****load of useless items not just with half of the mods, but the
items themselves are **** just because A. They're either Fugly, or B.
They're ****ing useless in functionality. or C. Both A & B combined
Can you tell me with a straight face you'll equip the Avenger assault
rifle when you have no accuracy with the weapon, regardless of skill
training? Can you tell me with a straight face you'll wear an ERCS-made
armor when it's obviously inferior to your starting equipment?  Don't
even get me started on the armor limitations with "U can only wear light
armor, so we will screw u by giving u nothing but medium or heavy
armor."

Just my playstyle regarding the trade-offs (just my
personal experience): I normally take DPS just because I'd rather have
more available rounds when I need it. I am not
the "uber Delta Force" marksman that can kill enemies with one shot per
kill on a consistent basis, and the amount of rounds I pick up from the
Thermal Clips is outright pitiful (Namely, Carnifex, Vindicator, and
Mattock come to mind just in my case) , making me pick nothing but
weapons with the biggest amount of ammo capacity.

Re:Omni-gel.
You misunderstand my point. EVERYTHING would be reduced to omnigel
automatically. It would never be realized as a holding pattern for ten
million guns. It just basically becomes another currency in which you
convert to your gear of choice, limited by what schematics and perhaps
what fab techniques you have at your disposal. IE perhaps uber high end
stuff DOES require a great deal of investiture just to have the right
equipment to make it, might then allow for regulation of weapons so you
don't start you with a Hackmaster +12 without having the semi weird
thing of why I'm starting out with basic issue gear when I'm tasked with
saving the galaxy. Which we can then replace the oodles of mineral
searching that we currently have. Because THAT is tedious.

I'm a bit lost on your proposed idea here, so feel free to clear up. Are you suggesting for omni-gel to make a return so we can fabricate our new equipment? If yes, how do we exactly gain the omni-gel?

Probably the same as TC's if we get down to it. That's a matter of play testing to see what makes the most sense, outright looting/scavenging ala a Fallout 3 or something more abstract like what is done in most shooters ie it's just lying around as icons. But elementally, there should be little that separates one gun from an uber gun but for some possibly rare elements and as such just reducing it down to a generic Omni-gel, but capable of scanning new guns or mods for their schematics to make new stuff seems the best of both worlds. It's a question of should it be semi rare and so you need to scan for it like we already do in ME2 for upgrades, or more common and found lying around (after combat) like rare elements/power cells, or even more common and straight up like TC's.  And we do away with what I found to be insanely tedious far more than any inventory management the planet mining. Because either those numbers are tons of platinum or whatnot each or I should just be grabbing the stray asteroid and getting as much ore as I could possibly need.

Re: inventory depends on the degree of realism. If we are abstracting all our loot as either: TC's, money, Omni-gel, the odd unique schematic, then there isn't a whole lot to change from ME2. And in all honesty it's not like I really want a radical change. I wouldn't want weapon mods on the fly, so I'm only asking to be able to change the weapons as I see fit back on the Normandy. Which makes sense given I have a fabrication lab, oodles of cash, and an armorer, or at least a guy that spends all his time with weapons. The issue of balancing, that you and really most people had can be resolved or at least mitigated by rethinking how it was done in ME1. I think they got a "little ambitious/too by the book" depending on how you look at it with ME1. Fewer levels, more specific tradeoffs, if there is an optimal config then they probably made the combat too generic. After spending time running around the Wasteland with my trusty scoped .44, why the infiltrator only has one real weapon to call their own is a travesty. Basically you shouldn't be hauling ten guns with you, you shouldn't be keeping a hundred back at base, but you SHOULD be able to alter them without strip mining a couple planets.

[chris2365]

I hope ME3 has more RPG elements. I find that ME2 had enough shooter elements, but really lacked in diversity (weapons, armor, upgrades...)

[rubyreader]

AlanC9 wrote...

rubyreader wrote...
ME2's solution isn't the only one. That's all I'm saying. Heck the existence, let alone the mega successes, of games like Diablo suggest very much that loot busting inventories can be almost the focus of a game if they are done well. That might not be your cup of tea, but no one can really argue that they aren't other people's.

Well, if that's all you're saying, then sure. But I'm not here to worry about what other people like.

What I am here for is to talk about what we mean when we talk about Bio "improving" the RPG aspects for ME3. I can't think of anything good that more loot would do for ME3, and I can see a bunch of ways that it might make the game worse.

Well for me the loot takes the place of weird and nonsensical stuff like mining. In a world of Omni-tools and gel, having to strip mine a world to get half the platinum I need to make some changes to what will be at most 3 guns seems crazy. There's like nothing in that train of events that makes sense.

I certainly don't want dozens of guns clogging up multiple windows in some convoluted inventory. But I also want to be able to choose some of the attributes of the gear I'm taking with me and what gear exactly that is. Some variation of primary, secondary, and sidearm is fine with me. Wouldn't mind some armor possibly even tech mods as well, basically slots to fill with whatever mission specific or tactic specific idea I have in mind (ie maybe armor insets for missions where you shields are going to be wonky...lower/shorten storm speed while decreasing damage.

[Zeus_Deus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

rubyreader wrote...

I don't quite understand that dichotomy as an argument. I understand where it comes from, in response to where people state a desire to return to ME1, but it's not much of an argument. Yes ME1's inventory was clunky, but the oodles of other RPG's with better inventory systems would suggest it's not impossible to improve it without eliminating it. I mean are weapon mods that require more tradeoffs like what was built into the weapons in ME2 such a bad thing? Or armor anythings

Problem with the trade-offs is it devolves into "Take mods that have more plus than minuses." Can you tell me with a straight face that you'll install a mod that will say "You'll get more damage, but your weapon will overheat faster and reduce your accuracy?" I always sold high explosive rounds every ****ing time because it made my weapons useless after firing three rounds.

I don't see what the problem with HE rounds is.

I installed HE rounds (with Frictionless Materials) on a sniper rifle effectively turning it into a 1 shot cannon.
Since you rarely get more than 2 shots from an unmodded sniper rifle before it overheats anyway it doesn't make too much difference.

You can also install it onto an Assault rifle along with a cooling mod, but fire in very controlled bursts of 2-3 shots with an interval inbetween.

[Jigero]

Zeus_Deus wrote...

I had the complete opposite experience and found myself thinking more in ME1.

For example:

In ME1, you had more skills to distribute points across and these really did affect the character throughout the game, not just in combat. So logically, this aspect of ME1 requires more thought.

Nice try but wrong. More skils do not equal more depth. The Skill system in ME1 was actually more resticting then ME2. The skill system forced you to focus on certian weapons. Drop points into skills you probably never used or never needed.

On top that most of the skill where redundant and forcing you to pick skills, that if you diddn't choose made parts of the game unavaible to you and you would have no idea when these things would pop up which just further restricted the skill system.

In ME1 you had a greater variety of weapons and armour, each with their own trade-offs. ME2 had less variety and no-stats - therefore no thinking required, just trial and error; try a weapon and if you don't like it, reload a save and use a different one.

I hear this arguement all the damn time and doesn't get any less retarded the more I hear it. Mass Effect 1 had zero weapon varity. You can get through the entire game on it's hardest difficulty using 1 weapon type easily. What ever you focused on you don't need to use anything else.

On top of that their wasn't more guns. they where the same guns just re textured and ever incresing stats and all you had to do was just equip the ones with the best stats and by the time you can get spectre weapons (which are pretty easy to get) everything else becomes defuncted.

In Mass Effect 2 though out the game has siutuation that requires diffrent weapons. And all the weapons avaible are no better then each other, they just fit to your playstyle and offer far more customization then ME1. In ME1 I got through the entire game just using an assualt rifle and never once thought using anything else was nessary.