461 réponses à ce sujet

[Zeus_Deus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

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."

That's too simplistic a way of looking at it because it would depend on the trade-off.

The Avenger assault rifle for instance - yes it may have poor accuracy but the trade-off may be higher damage.

If I currently have a weapon equipped with only slightly improved accuracy (e.g. <10 point difference) but significantly poorer damage, then I might very well equip the Avenger.

Same goes for the ERCS armour - yes it may have poor damage protection, but the trade-off is that it may have better shielding or more mod slots.

[Zeus_Deus]

Jigero wrote...

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.

NO.

I said more skills == more thought (re point distribution), not more depth.

You're right about it being restricting though, but that's actually the whole point.
You have to decide which areas your character becomes stronger at the expense of other areas.

Jigero wrote...

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.

LOL.

Give me unlimited clips/ammo (which is what you get in ME1) and I could easily complete ME2 on the hardest setting with the basic assault rifle.

[Lunatic LK47]

Zeus_Deus wrote...


That's too simplistic a way of looking at it because it would depend on the trade-off.

Uh, no. There is such a thing as useless weapons, and the item I listed is one of those.

The Avenger assault rifle for instance - yes it may have poor accuracy but the trade-off may be higher damage.

Uh, except Raptor, Tsunami, and Thunder rifles are miles above the Avenger in all three categories. Compare a level 5 Raptor, Tsunami, or Thunder to the Avenger. Any of these three are better in every single way. Only difference between the three better rifles is one or two points of accuracy.

If I currently have a weapon equipped with only slightly improved accuracy (e.g. <10 point difference) but significantly poorer damage, then I might very well equip the Avenger.

See Raptor, Tsunami, and Thunder. They're the only other rifles worth owning while saving up for Spectre weapons.

Same goes for the ERCS armour - yes it may have poor damage protection, but the trade-off is that it may have better shielding or more mod slots.

Uh, **** protection is **** protection no matter how you spin it. Last time I checked, it has poor protection against biotics and tech compared to your default Onyx armor.

[Bluko]

ME3 is basically going to be ME2 again with a few improvements. With ME2 they wanted go in a slightly different direction based off of feedback with ME1. It was a good game, but a lot of people found a lot faults with it. ME2 is essentially Bioware's basic finished version of the game. Also given the glowing reviews they have received about how great ME2 was, they'd be foolish to attemp to make any large alterations again.

So expect Thermal Clips, Weapons Locker, etc. to remain. Personally I prefer the Weapons Locker system in that feels a bit more realistic/sensible. Shepard no longer magically carries 150 guns and suits of armor in his underpants. Also I expect Powers/Abilities to work the same in ME3 as well. There will probably be new Powers/Abilities to boot, but I'd expect stuff like Pull, Push, Overload to remain the same. Perhaps they will have fancier evolutions.

What may change is the upgrade system. A lot of people found fault with that since it was basically was a linear form of progression for everything. In ME3 I'm guessing upgrades will be a little more divergent i.e. do you choose to make your gun more accurate or more powerful? Something like that would be nice, since you could then upgrade stuff to your liking. You know kind of like Dead Space. (Bioware could learn a lot from the Dead Space Developers...)

Also I'm guessing Planet Scanning will be gone since it was universally hated. It may remain, but if it does it will be greatly diminshed into something much faster and simpler. Which frankly wouldn't be too bad. It's just manually dragging a scanner across a planet's surface is well... dull.

I believe the Devs have stated themselves that ME3 will basically use ME2's engine with a few improvements. This is also the reason why ME3 is coming out so fast, in that it's coming this December. They've already been working on ME3 since ME2 came out essentially.  Also I imagine not re-doing the game engine spares them a lot time.

To me the Mass Effect series seems to greatly emulate the Baldur's Gate series. Mass Effect and Baldur's Gate were respectively different RPGs for their time, but at the same time had more traditional RPG elements. Also the stories are remarkably similar in that in both your trying to find an illusive super powerful bad guy. Add to that both games have a ton of exploration. With Mass Effect 2 and Baldur's Gate 2 we see a lot of improvements made to gameplay. Of course it can be argued not everything was improved for the better, but most people think Shadows of Amn is better then Baldur's Gate and that Mass Effect 2 is better then Mass Effect. It's also interesting to note both games had far less exploration then their earlier installments.

Honestly I expect Mass Effect 3 to be what Throne of Bhaal was for Baldur's Gate. Essentially it will play like the 2nd game, but with a lot more stuff. ToB had a ton of spells and items. I expect Mass Effect 3 will have an even greater array of weapons and abilities. The good thing is ToB is easily one of the most epic games I've played, even though it's just an RPG. Which probably means Mass Effect 3 will be insanely epic as well. Though the story probably isn't going to be earth shattering. But that right is usually held by the first game in that in Baldur's Gate you find out your a Bhaalspawn and in Mass Effect you learn about the Reapers. It's hard to top such revelations without making them seem comical.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
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.

See, here;'s the problem....

I didn't find ME2 to be a crappy game.

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.

This is not an argument. It's an assertion. (The bit about hybrids isn't relevant because ME2 didn't try to do that and ME3 certainly won't.)

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.

Hey, if you liked Diablo and Pokemon, good for you. I'm still going to call those aspects of gameplay pointless. And if it comes down to it, Pokemon's a better RPG than Diablo.

[FataliTensei]

DaPinkMenace wrote...

 Just as a general feeling, and after being on ME's forums, do you feel that ME3 will have deeper RPG elements (closer to ME1's equipment system, more extensive skill leveling, stat based accuracy, etc.), remain the same as ME2, or become more shooter intensive than ME1? Personally I'd like to see a return to the deeper RPG elements, I like having a bunch of passive and active skills to allocate points to rather than the 5-6 we saw in ME2. I'd also like to see different gun and armor skins, more so than ME2, maybe not on the same level as ME1 (the inventory did get a little cluttered) and the weapon/ammo modifications. I've seen some great threads with photoshopped skill and upgrade screens that have had a great many ideas, but a lot of people appreciated the lesser RPG elements, with more emphasis on skill based shooting. For me, it's hard to gauge which side seems to have more followings, but a compromise could be in the works.

tl;dr: Do you want more RPG elements like ME1 or more shooter elements like ME2/ which do you think we will get in ME3? 

I want more of the rpg elements from one and a fusion of the strong points of 1 and 2's combat systems, but BW already said they're sticking with ME2 mold so don't expect any improvements unless it's about gun combat.

[AlanC9]

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. 

Obviouly, I wasn't talking about making the game worse for you. It's pretty clear that we don't share common tastes in RPGs, or even a common definition of what an RPG is.

[AlanC9]

rubyreader wrote...

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 agree with this part. ME2 was better because at least the system stayed out of the way, but like I said upthread, I thought ME2 didn't go far enough.

[Zeus_Deus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Zeus_Deus wrote...


That's too simplistic a way of looking at it because it would depend on the trade-off.

Uh, no. There is such a thing as useless weapons, and the item I listed is one of those.

The Avenger assault rifle for instance - yes it may have poor accuracy but the trade-off may be higher damage.

Uh, except Raptor, Tsunami, and Thunder rifles are miles above the Avenger in all three categories. Compare a level 5 Raptor, Tsunami, or Thunder to the Avenger. Any of these three are better in every single way. Only difference between the three better rifles is one or two points of accuracy.

If I currently have a weapon equipped with only slightly improved accuracy (e.g. <10 point difference) but significantly poorer damage, then I might very well equip the Avenger.

See Raptor, Tsunami, and Thunder. They're the only other rifles worth owning while saving up for Spectre weapons.

Same goes for the ERCS armour - yes it may have poor damage protection, but the trade-off is that it may have better shielding or more mod slots.

Uh, **** protection is **** protection no matter how you spin it. Last time I checked, it has poor protection against biotics and tech compared to your default Onyx armor.

Point 1: I'm willing to bet that you come across a Lv. 5 Avenger rifle much earlier and a lot more often than you would any of those other 3 rifles. So it might be a good option to give to squad members that need a better weapon.

Point 2: Damage to shields is preferable to actual damage because shields automatically regenerate, whereas to restore damaged health requires medi-gel which can only be carried around in limited amounts. That is one reason why someone might choose stronger shields over damage protection.

[Burdokva]

bjdbwea wrote...

A perhaps more interesting question is this: Why is it so important to some of the defenders of ME 2 that it should be called an RPG?

Because people like to feel comfortable by pretending that it is something that it's really not? ME2 is a shooter with dialogues and a few customization menus.

A year ago I would have said an entirely different thing, but I'm really on the fence about ME3. At least I hope BioWare reveals enough details prior to release. It's their game and if they want it to be a shooter, fine. But don't advertize it as an RPG. It's not fun when you buy an RPG game and it turns out it is something different.   

[Silmane]

[Chaos Gate]

Lol, that's a funny picture.



Man, I miss all those skills from the original ME.

[Lunatic LK47]

Zeus_Deus wrote...

Point 1: I'm willing to bet that you come across a Lv. 5 Avenger rifle much earlier and a lot more often than you would any of those other 3 rifles. So it might be a good option to give to squad members that need a better weapon.

Uh, it's the opposite for me in a number of my playthroughs, but even then that is blind luck. Compared to the Lancer and Banshee asault rifles, Avenger is literally the red-headed stepchild that has very poor qualities regardless of being Mark III, IV, or V when it is compared on the same level with the Lancer and Banshee.

Let me put the weapons this way. If I want to put out a fire and have a choice between a toy water pistol (Avenger), lighting another fire (Thunder/Tsunami/Raptor) , and a fire extinguisher (Spectre Weapons), I'll take the ****ing fire extinguisher. Basic common sense. That's how useless the looted weapons are.

Point 2: Damage to shields is preferable to actual damage because shields automatically regenerate, whereas to restore damaged health requires medi-gel which can only be carried around in limited amounts. That is one reason why someone might choose stronger shields over damage protection.

Uh, except shields are not infallible since the occasional sniper or engineer will love overloading the shields or doing assassination shots. There will be times soaking up damage is inevitable just because the situation is in the ****ter, especially when it comes to the pre-fab buildings or doing the first half of Noveria at a relatively low level. It's like saying "Relying on the shields is the equivalent of saying If you want to protect yourself from a fire, just add extra wood to your clothing."

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 13 février 2011 - 09:18 .

[Lunatic LK47]

rubyreader wrote...


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.

I prefered Mass Effect 2's system because it actually allowed me to focus more on the gameplay than spending twenty minutes in a menu screen. The "pick up one weapon and it's in the Normandy's databanks" actually made a whole lot of sense for me. I shouldn't have to waste hours of my life doing a "save/reload" exploit just to outfit everyone in my squad with the same weapons from a vendor. I can see why the planet mining is tedious, but on the other hand, it's better than finding some lump of minerals that are hidden in some dingy little corner of the barren bland planets.

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.

Just wondering, have you played StarCraft 2? What would you think of that game's research tree for upgrading our weapons?

[Lunatic LK47]

Zeus_Deus wrote...


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

You gotta be ****ting me. Damn thing overheats the weapons in two seconds or three shots from an assault rifle.

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.

A good thirty seconds are wasted waiting for the sniper rifle to cool down, and this is only useful in *CERTAIN* situations.

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.

One Frictionless materials does not mitigate the problems, not to mention the process of aiming the weapon is sub-par, regardless of analog sensitivity with the XBox 360's controls.

[Walker White]

Zeus_Deus wrote...

That's too simplistic a way of looking at it because it would depend on the trade-off.

The Avenger assault rifle for instance - yes it may have poor accuracy but the trade-off may be higher damage.

If I currently have a weapon equipped with only slightly improved accuracy (e.g. <10 point difference) but significantly poorer damage, then I might very well equip the Avenger.

Same goes for the ERCS armour - yes it may have poor damage protection, but the trade-off is that it may have better shielding or more mod slots.

ME1 items are a partial order based on three factors each.  For weapons it is damage, shots, accuracy.  For armor it is damage, shields, hardening.

The problem is that these partial orders have a top: an element that dominates every other item in the partial order on all three stats.  For weapons is the Specter gear.  Even Mark VII Specter gear dominates the Mark X's by other manufacturers.  There are no trade-offs; Specter gear wins everything.

For armor it is a little better: you get a choice between two.  Colossus armor has the best damage protection. Predator L/M/H has best shields and hardening.  All other armors are useless.  There are no tradeoffs that make them remotely acceptable. 

[Zeus_Deus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Zeus_Deus wrote...

Point 1: I'm willing to bet that you come across a Lv. 5 Avenger rifle much earlier and a lot more often than you would any of those other 3 rifles. So it might be a good option to give to squad members that need a better weapon.

Uh, it's the opposite for me in a number of my playthroughs, but even then that is blind luck. Compared to the Lancer and Banshee asault rifles, Avenger is literally the red-headed stepchild that has very poor qualities regardless of being Mark III, IV, or V when it is compared on the same level with the Lancer and Banshee.

Let me put the weapons this way. If I want to put out a fire and have a choice between a toy water pistol (Avenger), lighting another fire (Thunder/Tsunami/Raptor) , and a fire extinguisher (Spectre Weapons), I'll take the ****ing fire extinguisher. Basic common sense. That's how useless the looted weapons are.

Point 2: Damage to shields is preferable to actual damage because shields automatically regenerate, whereas to restore damaged health requires medi-gel which can only be carried around in limited amounts. That is one reason why someone might choose stronger shields over damage protection.

Uh, except shields are not infallible since the occasional sniper or engineer will love overloading the shields or doing assassination shots. There will be times soaking up damage is inevitable just because the situation is in the ****ter, especially when it comes to the pre-fab buildings or doing the first half of Noveria at a relatively low level. It's like saying "Relying on the shields is the equivalent of saying If you want to protect yourself from a fire, just add extra wood to your clothing."

1. In the absence of anything better, you would equip an Avenger on yourself or to upgrade a squadmates weapon.

2. I never said you should rely on shields. I was simply highlighting a reason why someone may choose more shields over damage.

[Walker White]

Zeus_Deus wrote...
1. In the absence of anything better, you would equip an Avenger on yourself or to upgrade a squadmates weapon.

In the absence of anything better, I collect items so that I can get the rich achievement.  ME1 is a game of vendor trash until I can get Specter Gear.  ME2 still had many weapon-tradeoffs in the end game.  Trade-offs in ME1 disappeared long before Virmire.

Zeus_Deus wrote...
2. I never said you should rely on shields. I was simply highlighting a reason why someone may choose more shields over damage.

I actually agree that shields are better.  Healing damage was resource limited -- medigel -- with some minor regenerative armor upgrades.  Shields regenerated faster, without upgrades, and cost no resources to replenish.  As a general rule, it is more cost effective to have a Predator L/M/H with its awesome shields than the damage protection of the Colossus.

However, this just means we get one choice of good armor.

[Zeus_Deus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Zeus_Deus wrote...


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

You gotta be ****ting me. Damn thing overheats the weapons in two seconds or three shots from an assault rifle.

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.

A good thirty seconds are wasted waiting for the sniper rifle to cool down, and this is only useful in *CERTAIN* situations.

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.

One Frictionless materials does not mitigate the problems, not to mention the process of aiming the weapon is sub-par, regardless of analog sensitivity with the XBox 360's controls.

1. That can be solved by firing in very controlled bursts and watching the heat meter and even combining it with the Overkill power.

2. No, it doesn't take anywhere near 30 seconds to cool the sniper. I should know because that's the only thing I install HE rounds on. 2 shots before cooldown (unmodded) vs 1 shot before cooldown is an easy tradeoff decision.

3. Frictionless materials decreases the cooldown time. Aiming can be increased by using a higher accuracy rifle with a tigher aiming circle. I don't play on XBox so can't comment on controls.

[Walker White]

Burdokva wrote...

Because people like to feel comfortable by pretending that it is something that it's really not? ME2 is a shooter with dialogues and a few customization menus.

No, it is because no one can agree what the term RPG means.  

Those of us who have played RPGs from the 70s would say that games like Baldur's Gate are not RPGs.  They certainly have no bearing on the rich experience of RPGs that we grew up with.  Similarly, the RPGs todays are different from the computer RPGs of the 90s -- which quite frankly was the dark ages of RPGs, as we lost variety and the term then referred to a narrow and formulaic genre.

And as an old guard RPG player from the 70s, I like what BioWare it is doing.  They are innovating and looking for ways to emulate more of the RPG experiences that I grew up with, instead of relying on crutches that are the result of computer limitations in the 90s.  

[Capeo]

I've only played ME2 so I'm speaking only from that experience but the thing it really lacks from an RPG perspective is trade offs. There's so few skills, and even those overlap classes, that everything just feels like a slight variant of everything else. Throw in the ability to take any weapon you want on the Collector Ship and the ability to respec and everything is diluted. Armor is essentially cosmetic. The little bonuses are so small there's no reason not to just go with what you think looks cool. It's the armor and shield upgrades that truly make the difference and you're going to get all of them no matter what.



Also, the difference in classes is fairly minimal because there are so few skills. I should say there are so few skills that take down opponents protection. I mean, that's what combat is in this game: stripping defenses, and you can do that with two skills, Overload and Warp. I'm on my first insanity play through right now (still finishing a couple loyalty missions before the derelict reaper) and my Sentinel is unstoppable at level 23 (or so, I forget the level exactly). The beginning was frustrating and tedious. Now it's just tedious. I roll with Garrus, passive and Heavy Overload maxed, Samara, passive and Heavy Warp maxed and myself with passive maxed, Assault Armor, and both Heavy Overload and Heavy Warp, the Locust SMG and the Mattock and we can handle every situation. The only thing that's still a **** is when multiple Krogan are closing on you because it can be hard to strip them all down before they are on top of you. Combat just turns into a battle of attrition. Long, long battles of attrition.



It just seems odd that there's very little trade off in the classes. If you're going to make classes then force them to stick with the weapons they are stuck with. Or better yet, and more realistically, give us the choice of which weapons we want to invest in by putting skill points into them. I'd love a more open system akin to FO3 where you can craft any type of character you want. Even just break it into three specializations, Soldier, Biotic and Tech, because that's all there really is. Your specialization can cut off certain skills or make the points you put into skills outside of your specialization count for less. Thus if a biotic specialist wants to put points into military weapons they do so at a great cost to their Biotic skills, or if they want to wear heavy military grade armor the same, etc. Also, make armors a trade off, like every other RPG, to where the bonus of wearing light armor is maneuverability while heavy armor is better protection.



As it stands ME2 is in a nebulous place between an RPG and a cover based TPS but it's the master of neither.

[MassEffect762]

Silmane wrote...

:lol:

That's funny!

Hope the bum who sold BW to EA is happy.

[camirish1]

CannotCompute wrote...

I'd definitely like to see more emphasis on the RPG aspect (a la ME1). Looting bodies, more skills to invest in, gaining XP per kill, more information about weapons (f.e. damage) and armor...

Things I'd also like to see: Weapon mods, Weapon Workbench to apply the mods, buyable armors for Shep's teammates, armor mods (also appliable by using the Workbench), elevators (and such) > loading screens, more squadmate banter

Yes, yes, and yes! You sir have saved me a post. Everything here I want! And vehicle exploration.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Capeo wrote...

I've only played ME2 so I'm speaking only from that experience but the thing it really lacks from an RPG perspective is trade offs. There's so few skills, and even those overlap classes, that everything just feels like a slight variant of everything else. Throw in the ability to take any weapon you want on the Collector Ship and the ability to respec and everything is diluted. Armor is essentially cosmetic. The little bonuses are so small there's no reason not to just go with what you think looks cool. It's the armor and shield upgrades that truly make the difference and you're going to get all of them no matter what.

Also, the difference in classes is fairly minimal because there are so few skills. I should say there are so few skills that take down opponents protection. I mean, that's what combat is in this game: stripping defenses, and you can do that with two skills, Overload and Warp. I'm on my first insanity play through right now (still finishing a couple loyalty missions before the derelict reaper) and my Sentinel is unstoppable at level 23 (or so, I forget the level exactly). The beginning was frustrating and tedious. Now it's just tedious. I roll with Garrus, passive and Heavy Overload maxed, Samara, passive and Heavy Warp maxed and myself with passive maxed, Assault Armor, and both Heavy Overload and Heavy Warp, the Locust SMG and the Mattock and we can handle every situation. The only thing that's still a **** is when multiple Krogan are closing on you because it can be hard to strip them all down before they are on top of you. Combat just turns into a battle of attrition. Long, long battles of attrition.

It just seems odd that there's very little trade off in the classes. If you're going to make classes then force them to stick with the weapons they are stuck with. Or better yet, and more realistically, give us the choice of which weapons we want to invest in by putting skill points into them. I'd love a more open system akin to FO3 where you can craft any type of character you want. Even just break it into three specializations, Soldier, Biotic and Tech, because that's all there really is. Your specialization can cut off certain skills or make the points you put into skills outside of your specialization count for less. Thus if a biotic specialist wants to put points into military weapons they do so at a great cost to their Biotic skills, or if they want to wear heavy military grade armor the same, etc. Also, make armors a trade off, like every other RPG, to where the bonus of wearing light armor is maneuverability while heavy armor is better protection.

As it stands ME2 is in a nebulous place between an RPG and a cover based TPS but it's the master of neither.

Great post and agree, ME1 had all of that and it was removed into what is ME2 right now, they removed too much and for a player like me who enjoyed the first ME being as it was i feel very disapointed and really wish Bioware return to its roots once again, only better because sequels tend to improve game aspects not just cut them out.

[TekFanX]

Both systems are kinda restricting.
In ME1 the skills need a lot of leveling before actually getting powerful. You can spend spare points as you want, granting you slight bonuses on skills which are only of secondary importance for your play-style.
In ME2 you have to plan your character according to the increasing points. You have either some points left with a build that's based on you're preferred play-style or you have a build as powerful as possible, only halfway based on your play-style.

Also the number of skills: In ME1 you have many skills with one function each. This gives you the possibility to be really picky about your specialization, but it also renders many skills worthless regarding the number of skill-points needed to be invested.
Especially to unlock a skill you want by leveling a skill you'd never use ingame.
In ME2 the whole thing changes. Instead of many skills you've got only a few.
I like that better for things like overload, which absorbed the function of jamming weapons from ME1.
But certainly it lacks the possibilities of customization.

My preferred system would be a mix of both: A lot of useful skills(maybe ten) with one point for each rank(maybe six ranks per skill), independent from each other in terms of unlocking them.
I wouldn't mind some passive skills either(Examples:faster shield-recharge for tech-classes, higher weapon-precision for weapon-classes). A system with perfect freedom about forming your character.

Another point regarding the RPG-debate I think is the use of skills.
While ME1 allowed you to spam powers with a cooldown for each single skill, ME2 basically handicapped you in the use of powers.
I don't want to spam powers like it was possible in ME1, that was just boring.
But then again I think they should compete with a weapon.
I think the weapons pretty much resemble the shooter-part of ME2(I like it a lot), while the powers resemble the combat-part of the RPG in ME2(could be boosted).
In my opinion a limiter would be nice: Something like throw fills you're biotic limiter only to about 20%, while Warp fills it up to 50%. The limiter could discharge over time, based on your skills.
If you reach 100% you get a debuff and have to wait for the limiter to completely discharge(almost like the weapon-cooldown in ME1).

Edit: 

Not to forget deeper item-customization and the inclusion of the player-class into the dialouges/cinematics.

Modifié par TekFanX, 13 février 2011 - 05:55 .