202 réponses à ce sujet

[Nathan Redgrave]

Admoniter wrote...

- Soldier can carry all weapons at once (The only reason this goes here is because it is to be expected, infact it has been the hallmark of the soldier since ME1)

Even bothering to list this as its own separate point strikes me as extremely silly.

[Gibb_Shepard]

I REALLY don't want the final battle to take place on Earth.

I'm hoping it falls half way through the game. That'd be epic.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

I REALLY don't want the final battle to take place on Earth.

I really do, myself. And I'm still hoping for that "sacrifice the Earth to save the rest of the galaxy" option to turn then entire scenario on its head with.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Yay
Mostly everything!

Nay
- Liara squadmate
Like I said on Mesina's thread I think Liara should continue being the SB. Bioware on the DLC pretty much stated: "she won't be there with you shooting things in ME3 but she'll help you with information". But now they don't think it so. WTF?
- Legion non-squadmate
As for Legion, it makes no sense for now that he's out of Shep's squad. He was designed to operate with organics and even states his desire to help Shepard on the mission to fight the reapers. It makes no sense, and Legion is awesome. I want Legion as squadmate! <_<
- Cerberus is out to kill Shepard
Like Legion out of the squad this makes absolutely no sense. Both are a nay until no further information.

[Nathan Redgrave]

...Legion has not been confirmed as a squadmate OR a non-squadmate, dammit. All we know is that he's in the game. Pay attention.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 10 avril 2011 - 02:43 .

[AntenDS]

Legion does better as the "leader" of the Geth than on your squad.

[karatemanchan37]

Until more info comes, I don't like having Ceberus designated as an "enemy". The least I could do is fight with a group that promotes humanity by helping me defend Earth!

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

...Legion has not been confirmed as a squadmate OR a non-squadmate, dammit. All we know is that he's in the game. Pay attention.

I know. That's why I said until no further information. You pay attention.

Edit: 

AntenDS wrote...

Legion does better as the "leader" of the Geth than on your squad.

There is no "leader" on the geth and Legion is out specifically to be with organics and not with his people. It doesn't make sense. For now at least.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 10 avril 2011 - 03:37 .

[Admoniter]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

Admoniter wrote...

- Soldier can carry all weapons at once (The only reason this goes here is because it is to be expected, infact it has been the hallmark of the soldier since ME1)

Even bothering to list this as its own separate point strikes me as extremely silly.

Well I am incredibly silly... so yeah.

[Mylene]

 Big Yay!
-All classes can wield all weapons unhindered now
-the return of old teammates
Nay
-cerberus is out to kill shepard:?

[Td1984]

iakus wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Who the hell is James Sanders? I'd much rather have Jacob on my team than some random new guy.

A colonel in the Alliance military?

Well played.

[Made Nightwing]

I hope Colonel Sanders brings Chicken

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I'll miss Ash's black hair.

[Terror_K]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

So? classes have had little to no unique weapons so far, unlike powers.[/quote]

Except for Assault Rifles, which were previously soldier-only. There were still restrictions in place.

[quote]
Wrong. ME2 has global mods that can be researched as soon as you recruit Mordin. Linear?
Yeah, I guess that upgrading from Frictionless Materials IX to X was much more fascinating.[/quote]

It's the fact that they are "global" as you put it that is the problem. They're not mods at all, they're just upgrades. Upgrades that stack unlimitely with no trade-offs or limits. The difference between ME1 and ME2 was that in the former you had to make a choice when it came to modding your weapon because you could only put in 2-3 mods of varying types. In ME2 everything just upgrades and upgrades and you can just max everything with no real choice or trade-offs at all. It makes the whole system shallow, mindless and pointless as well as taking away player choice and limits that should be in place. If you're going to automate things as much as that, you may as well go all the way and cut the player out entirely. One of ME2's biggest problems is that it does too much for you without any real input. You could never really customise your weapons at all.

[quote]
So? 'Thermal clips' is a traditional mechanism. And everything was better than ME1's mechanism... 
In fact, try the mod that implements the thermal clip/heatsink hybrid that is pretty popular as a suggestion. It's pointless.[/quote]

The problem is they break logic and lore too much, and don't even really make sense how they're implemented (they're supposedly universal, yet still limited and have to be divided evenly amongst the weapons, etc.)

[quote]
That's not what God-modding means.[/quote]

How so? That's exactly what the system does. There are no trade-offs or any real choice, it's just a linear series of upgrades that stack and stack and stack as you get them with no limitations until every gun is an uber gun. It's like the equivalent of being able to put every mod in ME1 into a single weapon without being limited by slots, or in a fantasy RPG being able to just stack swords and other weapons so they all have all the bonus effects of every weapon you come across. The player never has to make a choice of "do I choose better damage, or better accuracy?" or anything like that because they can have both and barely have to lift a finger to do it. By the end the weapons literally are God-modded.

[quote]
How is that a negative change? [/quote]

Because those skills are part of what makes the classes they are part of who they are. They help define them. To remove this aspect entirely is like taking away "lockpicking" and "trap-setting" and "stealth" from a thief/rogue archetype in a fantasy RPG and just letting any class do it. It's oversimplification, overaccessibility and dumbing-down just for those who can't handle the dynamics of RPG class systems and skills and want everything handed to them on a silver platter and made overly easy, and it makes the RPG mechanics shallow and watered-down. On top of that it pretty much leaves us with no passive, non-combat skills, resulting in ME2 being pretty much only about combat now when it came to skills, which has narrowed the focus to entirely one factor and reduced the breadth of the RPG system. Essentially we now just have a system of powers rather than proper class abilities anymore. A classic case where the term "streamlining" is used and what it really is is "oversimplification" and "dumbing down" instead.

[quote]
Not in vanilla ME2, but I guess that you had a problem with it's combat-oriented approach?[/quote]

I had a problem with how much of a pathetic, weak, gimmicky, gamey and unrealistic vehicle it was. It was just plain bad in almost every sense.

[quote]
And this is a positive change.
If someone prefers to invest in shooter elements, instead of using powers, they should pick the soldier. And that's what happenned. [/quote]

It's not a positive change to an RPG when so many players are just playing the one class at all. It means there are balancing issues. Or it means that too many lunkheads who can't handle proper class skills are being brought into the game who go for the simplest most meat-headed class there is because they don't want complexity and have to think and use tactics and would rather just Gears of War their way through.

[quote]
How is that good? After all, the limited slots allow you to choose your build before each mission.[/quote]

It's good because it allows more customised class builds, but without directly screwing the main classes themselves to do it by unrestricting them. It means the player has to achieve something to make those builds rather than just get them right at the start.

[quote]
By restricting yourself, you are restricting your role-playing. 

Not a very good RPG element.[/quote]

Uh... no. Restrictions increase role-playing. If instead of classes that defined the type and style of character you were you could just pick from anything and everything, then that would restrict the roleplaying experience. The roles and classes are defined both by their skills and by the ones they don't have. If every player is a cross class Soldier-Adept-Engineer-Sentinel-Vanguard-Infiltrator and there are no defined classes then what exactly defines them outside of their dialogue choices? Skills and abilities certainly don't, because they can have them all.

[quote]
It is the opposite. Each class has unique features, they are not restricted from others. Each class has it's own powers which will evolve, so what's the problem?[/quote]

And they're not unique at all if everybody has them. When everybody is special, nobody is. Part of what made tech-based classes special was their non-combat passive skills, but now they're gone and thus tech-based classes are lesser for it and no longer as crucial or special. Again, a class is as much determined by what it doesn't have as it is by what it does. A Soldier doesn't have tech or biotic skills, if it does, it ceases to be a soldier and thus becomes less defined and unique.

[quote]
These both sound like powers.

Not weapons.[/quote]

So? A staff is a weapon too, but that doesn't mean warriors/fighters and rogues/thieves can use them, just like a mage/wizard can't use swords or daggers. It's the same basic principle: both skills and what items a class can use help define them.

[quote]
That's a really pessimistic view. Each class is unique, yes, but surely that's not produced by the restrictions but the unique features of each class?[/quote]

You just answered your own question: each class is unique because of the skills they have and the restrictions put upon them, i.e. the skills they don't have. They're special because they have the skills they do and other classes don't, and other classes are special because of the skills they have that the first class doesn't. If everybody can use the same skills then they are no longer unique.

[quote]
The thing is, in pure RPGs, all you do is right click and use powers, but in shooter hybrids, right click is replaced by well...shooting. Surely, since every class can right click as much as they want and without any other restrictions, everyone should be able to shoot as well?

'Shooting' is a shooter element, 'powers' is an RPG one.
[/quote]

When you're dealing with an RPG, even an action-based one like ME with shooter features, the gameplay elements shouldn't be so isolated and individual from each other: they should blend naturally. Saying that "shooting is a shooter element and powers are an RPG one" would be like saying that in classic D&D that a fighter using their sword to kill an enemy is a "hack'n'slash element and not an RPG one" but that's not the case. Even in KotOR you had shooting, but it was still an RPG element and could never be considered a "shooter one" realistically. When you're tying a mechanic into an RPG system you need to have them work together in unison, and the rules that apply to one can't be contradicted by the other.

[Cerbrus operative]

I wonder. if Wrex was killed on Virmire, will Wreav take his place on ME3 like he did on ME2?

[Terror_K]

Cerbrus operative wrote...

I wonder. if Wrex was killed on Virmire, will Wreav take his place on ME3 like he did on ME2?

It'll probably depend on circumstances and context of his appearance. For example, if Wrex is one of the trial attendees at the start of the game in support of Shepard, I doubt Wreav would be there to defend Shepard instead.

[KotOREffecT]

blueraven85 wrote...

Are we sure that's Ash in that pic?
The person in that pic has brown hair and a lighter skin colour then Ashley , and that doesn't look like an Aliance uniform shes wearing.

Oh thats Ash all right..........

[Phaedon]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
Except for Assault Rifles, which were previously soldier-only. There were still restrictions in place.[/quote]
Minor restrictions, then.
Considering that that restriction existed to encourage using powers, I guess they managed to solve that issue.

[quote]It's the fact that they are "global" as you put it that is the problem. They're not mods at all, they're just upgrades. Upgrades that stack unlimitely with no trade-offs or limits. The difference between ME1 and ME2 was that in the former you had to make a choice when it came to modding your weapon because you could only put in 2-3 mods of varying types. In ME2 everything just upgrades and upgrades and you can just max everything with no real choice or trade-offs at all. It makes the whole system shallow, mindless and pointless as well as taking away player choice and limits that should be in place. If you're going to automate things as much as that, you may as well go all the way and cut the player out entirely. One of ME2's biggest problems is that it does too much for you without any real input. You could never really customise your weapons at all.[/quote]
You said it yourself.
Upgrades+Ammo Powers. Sure, it isn't the best possible way to do things, but that was in order to fix the horrible progression and the other problems the 'mods' caused.

As for the no, choice, I am afraid you are wrong.
Not everyone has infinite amounts of minerals, in order to research everything.

[quote]The problem is they break logic and lore too much, and don't even really make sense how they're implemented (they're supposedly universal, yet still limited and have to be divided evenly amongst the weapons, etc.)[/quote]
How do they broke lore at all?
Heat sinks are thermal clips as well, you just don't change them once the mission is done.
The advantage? You are not a sitting duck in CQB.

[quote]How so? That's exactly what the system does. There are no trade-offs or any real choice, it's just a linear series of upgrades that stack and stack and stack as you get them with no limitations until every gun is an uber gun. It's like the equivalent of being able to put every mod in ME1 into a single weapon without being limited by slots, or in a fantasy RPG being able to just stack swords and other weapons so they all have all the bonus effects of every weapon you come across. The player never has to make a choice of "do I choose better damage, or better accuracy?" or anything like that because they can have both and barely have to lift a finger to do it. By the end the weapons literally are God-modded.[/quote]
""God Modding[/i]" is in essence when someone's character has the ability to do practically anything without limits or boundaries."

Also, this term is used in role-playing, not management.

[quote]Because those skills are part of what makes the classes they are part of who they are. They help define them. To remove this aspect entirely is like taking away "lockpicking" and "trap-setting" and "stealth" from a thief/rogue archetype in a fantasy RPG and just letting any class do it. It's oversimplification, overaccessibility and dumbing-down just for those who can't handle the dynamics of RPG class systems and skills and want everything handed to them on a silver platter and made overly easy, and it makes the RPG mechanics shallow and watered-down. On top of that it pretty much leaves us with no passive, non-combat skills, resulting in ME2 being pretty much only about combat now when it came to skills, which has narrowed the focus to entirely one factor and reduced the breadth of the RPG system. Essentially we now just have a system of powers rather than proper class abilities anymore. A classic case where the term "streamlining" is used and what it really is is "oversimplification" and "dumbing down" instead.[/quote]
No, it is not, in fact it is the exact opposite.
These skills did indeed, use to define these classes. Now, well now, there are new powers that define these classes. So, instead of dumbing them down, they add more RPG powers in combat.

[quote]I had a problem with how much of a pathetic, weak, gimmicky, gamey and unrealistic vehicle it was. It was just plain bad in almost every sense.[/quote]
After playing with it on Normal and Hardcore I disagree.
The combat-oriented approach was nice for some of the side-missions, and if you try to mod it to have better armour, I believe that you would find it to be overkill.

The Hammerhead wanted to introduce a new playstyle. You can't just sit around and shoot stuff, you have to run the whole time, and I believe that that was executed well.

[quote] It's not a positive change to an RPG when so many players are just playing the one class at all. It means there are balancing issues. Or it means that too many lunkheads who can't handle proper class skills are being brought into the game who go for the simplest most meat-headed class there is because they don't want complexity and have to think and use tactics and would rather just Gears of War their way through.[/quote]
Balancing? This is not an MMORPG. The classes don't need to be divided evenly.
If they are newcomers to RPGs, then what's the problem with them picking the Soldier class? They can learn how to use powers and start using more complex classes. 

Why would it be bad if people who wanted pew pew played a class that supports it? Does the pew pew have to suck? Or should there be no class that supports pew pew?

On top of that, pew pew!


[quote]It's good because it allows more customised class builds, but without directly screwing the main classes themselves to do it by unrestricting them. It means the player has to achieve something to make those builds rather than just get them right at the start.[/quote]
I think it's the exact opposite.
Different combinations of weapons create more possible builds.

[quote]Uh... no. Restrictions increase role-playing. If instead of classes that defined the type and style of character you were you could just pick from anything and everything, then that would restrict the roleplaying experience. The roles and classes are defined both by their skills and by the ones they don't have. If every player is a cross class Soldier-Adept-Engineer-Sentinel-Vanguard-Infiltrator and there are no defined classes then what exactly defines them outside of their dialogue choices? Skills and abilities certainly don't, because they can have them all.[/quote]
But that's what god-modding is!
The ability to do anything you want. As long as god-modding is averted, I don't see the point of more advanced restrictions.

[quote]And they're not unique at all if everybody has them. When everybody is special, nobody is. Part of what made tech-based classes special was their non-combat passive skills, but now they're gone and thus tech-based classes are lesser for it and no longer as crucial or special. Again, a class is as much determined by what it doesn't have as it is by what it does. A Soldier doesn't have tech or biotic skills, if it does, it ceases to be a soldier and thus becomes less defined and unique.[/quote]
Again, that's pessimistic.
Soldiers have soldier skills.
Biotics have biotic skills.
Techs have tech skills.

I need to remind you that not everyone has the same powers. And, the passive skills were replaced by active skills, which are unique as well. These are the ones which  define the class now.

And why exactly do I need an attribute for a mini-game?
Shouldn't my own skill determine my own character?

[quote]So? A staff is a weapon too, but that doesn't mean warriors/fighters and rogues/thieves can use them, just like a mage/wizard can't use swords or daggers. It's the same basic principle: both skills and what items a class can use help define them.[/quote]
But these weapons are of secondary importance, aren't they? What they do is what matters.
All weapons in the MEverse shoot. Nothing class defining.

If anything, the weapon set list should allow players to experiment different combinations with powers.

[quote]You just answered your own question: each class is unique because of the skills they have and the restrictions put upon them, i.e. the skills they don't have. They're special because they have the skills they do and other classes don't, and other classes are special because of the skills they have that the first class doesn't. If everybody can use the same skills then they are no longer unique.[/quote]
So, we are basically saying the same thing. It's just a matter of the glass being half-full or half-empty?

[quote]When you're dealing with an RPG, even an action-based one like ME with shooter features, the gameplay elements shouldn't be so isolated and individual from each other: they should blend naturally. Saying that "shooting is a shooter element and powers are an RPG one" would be like saying that in classic D&D that a fighter using their sword to kill an enemy is a "hack'n'slash element and not an RPG one" but that's not the case. Even in KotOR you had shooting, but it was still an RPG element and could never be considered a "shooter one" realistically. When you're tying a mechanic into an RPG system you need to have them work together in unison, and the rules that apply to one can't be contradicted by the other.
[/quote]
Well, this is what breaks your argument.
Shooting in KOTOR was not a shooter element, it was another RPG element.

[Terror_K]

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

You said it yourself.
Upgrades+Ammo Powers. Sure, it isn't the best possible way to do things, but that was in order to fix the horrible progression and the other problems the 'mods' caused.[/quote]

What are you even talking about? Beyond the fact that the current ME2 upgrade system and Ammo powers have more problems themselves than they have benefits, what "progression issues" and "other problems" did the original modding system cause? I can't think of any, unless one is going to be petty and  suggest that having to switch them all the time, etc. is an issue when that's not really mod-specific at all and more just a side-effect of ME1's inventory issues as a whole. I don't recall people complaining about mods... they just seemed to disappear in ME2 for no apparent reason, taking proper customisation with them.

[quote]
As for the no, choice, I am afraid you are wrong.
Not everyone has infinite amounts of minerals, in order to research everything.[/quote]

Why not. It's not exactly hard to do. Even without LotSB which just hands them to you on a platter.

[quote]
How do they broke lore at all?
Heat sinks are thermal clips as well, you just don't change them once the mission is done.
The advantage? You are not a sitting duck in CQB.[/quote]

Aside from Zaeed mentioning them from a time before they existed and them being on Aeia: a planet isolated from the rest of the galaxy for a decade, they are a massive logic error in so many ways. The fact we're supposed to believe that the whole galaxy changed within two years, including quarians and those on Omega, to the point of complete extinction of the old system. The fact that everybody so willingly agreed on a standard like that so quickly, despite the fact that it's giving up essentially unlimited and unrestricted firing ability for something that depends on a finite resource. America can't even change to the metric system and we're supposed to believe a whole galaxy agreed to a standardised cooling system? That's just scratching the surface, since I don't really want to get into the lace tablecloth of plotholes here where it's not really relevant to the thread and because it's been gone over so many times before it's just tedious now.

[quote]
"God Modding" is in essence when someone's character has the ability to do practically anything without limits or boundaries."

Also, this term is used in role-playing, not management.[/quote]

Uh... you do realise that's precisely what I described: the research and upgrade system of ME2 is exactly this in a nutshell. That's what I said, and now you're pulling out the definition in defense only to prove me right? That's just... there aren't words...

[quote]
No, it is not, in fact it is the exact opposite.
These skills did indeed, use to define these classes. Now, well now, there are new powers that define these classes. So, instead of dumbing them down, they add more RPG powers in combat.[/quote]

It's not adding more in the long run when you take away and narrow the focus in the end. What you're essentially saying is that because there were ten oranges, then five were taken away and then another two added that it means there's more. It doesn't work that way. And it is dumbing things down when the skills that went now mean any class is capable of using their attributes and when everything is now just about combat.

[quote]
I think it's the exact opposite.
Different combinations of weapons create more possible builds.[/quote]

Yes, but again, if everybody can do everything without restrictions the very factors that define them are gone. How many times do I have to repeat this factor until it sinks in with you? I just get the feeling I'm talking to a brick wall, except that a brick wall is actually capable of absorbing things.

[quote]
But that's what god-modding is!
The ability to do anything you want. As long as god-modding is averted, I don't see the point of more advanced restrictions.[/quote]

So that's how you define how an RPG system works and how classes should be defined and restricted: as long as God-modding is avoided everything else is fine. How many RPGs have you actually played?

[quote]
Again, that's pessimistic.
Soldiers have soldier skills.
Biotics have biotic skills.
Techs have tech skills.[/quote]

Yes and Soldier sklls are not biotic skills or tech skills. You can't just give biotic and tech skills to a soldier and still call them a Soldier. It's not a hard concept, so why do can't you absorb it?

[quote]
I need to remind you that not everyone has the same powers. And, the passive skills were replaced by active skills, which are unique as well. These are the ones which  define the class now.[/quote]

Making everything about just combat now and nothing else. Again, it's reduced the system from skills to just combat powers. That's shallow and narrowly focussed.

[quote]
And why exactly do I need an attribute for a mini-game?
Shouldn't my own skill determine my own character?[/quote]

Not when you don't know how to do it, and that's the entire point. That's the whole point of specialists in an RPG in the first place. Yes, your skill should determine it, but if you don't have the skill then you can't do it. That's the entire purpose of having said skills. If you have no mechanical knowledge or skill whatsover do you realistically expect to be able to just walk out the door and know how to fix a broken car? Similarly, if you have no knowledge of tech or computers do you realistically expect to be able to hack a computer terminal or bypass an electronic lock? Apparently the answer to you is "yes" because you just seem to see it as a mini-game and that's it. When you're properly roleplaying your character and class you should acknowledge exactly what's going on in the universe as you do it. ME1 realised this and handled it appropriately. ME2 basically said any fool with an omni-tool can just get into anything with no need of knowledge or skill.

[quote]
So, we are basically saying the same thing. It's just a matter of the glass being half-full or half-empty?[/quote]

Except that you seem to think giving players near-on unlimited freedom is a good thing, while I know that it isn't and players need boundaries and restrictions in an RPG to stop it being a broken, pointless system. But you don't care if it's a broken, pointless system... in fact, you seem to prefer it that way. Because that way you can have your cake and eat it too. I personally find such approaches to be tedious, shallow and mindless.

[quote]
Well, this is what breaks your argument.
Shooting in KOTOR was not a shooter element, it was another RPG element.
[/quote]

Uh... wasn't that was I just said? How is my argument broken by something I outright stated as a direct supporting point? I was saying that that's how ME2 fails: because its shooter aspects are far too far removed from its RPG ones, breaking the entire system in the process and making it fail as an RPG overall from the statistical/ruleset side of things. It's just too damn shallow, automated and unrestricted.

[Silmane]

Nay: Being on trial.

[Nohvarr]

Let's not start this argument again. I got tired of it during the run up to ME 2, and that hasn't changed now that we're in the run up to ME 3. Honestly there's no point to it, from what we've seen Bioware has decided to incorporate some of the ME 1 system into ME 3. Some people won't like it, and that's fine they don't have to, but arguing about it in a never ending circle does nothing but kill time.

TK believes rpgs should be done one way and Phade another. Bioware has listened to both, as shown by their inclusion of mods and still keeping ammo abilities as 'powers'. In 8 months we'll see how well it works out, until then, let's not resurrect old arguments that won't go anywhere.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 10 avril 2011 - 03:16 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...
What are you even talking about? Beyond the fact that the current ME2 upgrade system and Ammo powers have more problems themselves than they have benefits,[/quote]
Problems? Which problems exactly do they have? I'd love to listen to your complaints about them, since I don't find any problems that they cause.
[quote]what "progression issues" and "other problems" did the original modding system cause? I can't think of any, unless one is going to be petty and  suggest that having to switch them all the time, etc. is an issue when that's not really mod-specific at all and more just a side-effect of ME1's inventory issues as a whole.[/quote]
Imbalance. You can rape everything with Frictionless Materials for example. As well as I to X upgrades with no meaning, that are messy and make your inventory full of junk.
[quote]I don't recall people complaining about mods... they just seemed to disappear in ME2 for no apparent reason, taking proper customisation with them.[/quote]
I beg to differ. The inventory was the main thing Mass Effect was criticized for, and the ME1 weapon mods have had a very important role on it.


[quote]Why not. It's not exactly hard to do. Even without LotSB which just hands them to you on a platter.[/quote]
Yes, it is exactly hard to do.
Unless you mod your game or mine every single planet, yes, it is quite hard.


[quote]Aside from Zaeed mentioning them from a time before they existed and them being on Aeia: a planet isolated from the rest of the galaxy for a decade, they are a massive logic error in so many ways. The fact we're supposed to believe that the whole galaxy changed within two years, including quarians and those on Omega, to the point of complete extinction of the old system. The fact that everybody so willingly agreed on a standard like that so quickly, despite the fact that it's giving up essentially unlimited and unrestricted firing ability for something that depends on a finite resource. America can't even change to the metric system and we're supposed to believe a whole galaxy agreed to a standardised cooling system? That's just scratching the surface, since I don't really want to get into the lace tablecloth of plotholes here where it's not really relevant to the thread and because it's been gone over so many times before it's just tedious now.[/quote]
Except that they didn't change from one thing to a completely different one.
Thermal clips are heat sinks that are just removed more often, I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

[quote]Uh... you do realise that's precisely what I described: the research and upgrade system of ME2 is exactly this in a nutshell. That's what I said, and now you're pulling out the definition in defense only to prove me right? That's just... there aren't words... [/quote]
First of all, 'god-modding' is a term that applies only in matters of role-playing. For example, 'You can't take down a giant with your fists, that's god-modding!'
Secondly, how was what you said god-modding. I think that you are confusing this term, you might want to use a different one to have your point come across.

[quote]It's not adding more in the long run when you take away and narrow the focus in the end. What you're essentially saying is that because there were ten oranges, then five were taken away and then another two added that it means there's more. It doesn't work that way. And it is dumbing things down when the skills that went now mean any class is capable of using their attributes and when everything is now just about combat.[/quote]
I don't understand why 'two were added' and why not 'five were added' or 'seven were added'.
Unlike combat powers, passive skills had a minor effect on how I, personally played my game.

[quote]
Yes, but again, if everybody can do everything without restrictions the very factors that define them are gone. How many times do I have to repeat this factor until it sinks in with you? I just get the feeling I'm talking to a brick wall, except that a brick wall is actually capable of absorbing things.[/quote]
I suggest that if you are incapable of staying calm and phrasing polite arguments instead of personal attacks, you should avoid debates on the future.
I am afraid that you haven't proved how weapons are class-defining in the Mass Effect games.

Unlike a mage's staff for example, there is nothing lore-wise that implies that Biotics can't fire ARs for example.

[quote]So that's how you define how an RPG system works and how classes should be defined and restricted: as long as God-modding is avoided everything else is fine. How many RPGs have you actually played?[/quote]
[quote]How many RPGs have you actually played?[/quote]
Interesting, I was under the impression that RPGs were special because they allowed you more freedom than other games. As long as the freedom is game-breaking, how exactly is it bad?


[quote]Yes and Soldier sklls are not biotic skills or tech skills. You can't just give biotic and tech skills to a soldier and still call them a Soldier. It's not a hard concept, so why do can't you absorb it?[/quote]
A basket that carries applies is called an apple basket because it carries apples, not because it doesn't carry oranges.

[quote]Making everything about just combat now and nothing else. Again, it's reduced the system from skills to just combat powers. That's shallow and narrowly focussed.[/quote]
Could you explain why?


[quote]Not when you don't know how to do it, and that's the entire point. That's the whole point of specialists in an RPG in the first place. Yes, your skill should determine it, but if you don't have the skill then you can't do it. That's the entire purpose of having said skills. If you have no mechanical knowledge or skill whatsover do you realistically expect to be able to just walk out the door and know how to fix a broken car? Similarly, if you have no knowledge of tech or computers do you realistically expect to be able to hack a computer terminal or bypass an electronic lock? Apparently the answer to you is "yes" because you just seem to see it as a mini-game and that's it. When you're properly roleplaying your character and class you should acknowledge exactly what's going on in the universe as you do it. ME1 realised this and handled it appropriately. ME2 basically said any fool with an omni-tool can just get into anything with no need of knowledge or skill.[/quote]
Therefore, once the skill is unlocked it shouldn't be upgraded anymore?
That doesn't sound bad.


[quote]Except that you seem to think giving players near-on unlimited freedom is a good thing, while I know that it isn't and players need boundaries and restrictions in an RPG to stop it being a broken, pointless system.[/quote]
But how will it be broken, unless you god-mod?
[quote]But you don't care if it's a broken, pointless system... in fact, you seem to prefer it that way. Because that way you can have your cake and eat it too. I personally find such approaches to be tedious, shallow and mindless.[/quote]
No, what I believe is that freedom is very important in RPGs.
As long as it doesn't break my game, I want as much freedom as I can have.

[quote]Uh... wasn't that was I just said? How is my argument broken by something I outright stated as a direct supporting point? I was saying that that's how ME2 fails: because its shooter aspects are far too far removed from its RPG ones, breaking the entire system in the process and making it fail as an RPG overall from the statistical/ruleset side of things. It's just too damn shallow, automated and unrestricted.[/quote]
You mean that the shooting elements should be determined by the classic RPG elements?
Well, that's not a hybrid. That's an RPG with a few shooter elements.
[quote]It's just too damn shallow, automated and unrestricted[/quote]
These two tend to be opposites.

[SinDr0me]

Yay!

Modifié par SinDr0me, 10 avril 2011 - 04:41 .

[Epic777]

I thought more RPG elements is want people wanted? Me3 appears to be going in that direction

[Dave666]

@Phaedon and Terror_K I've read over your discussion and I kinda see where you are both coming from. I would argue that calling the upgrade system in ME:2 God-modding is not the most acurate, better to simply say its completely linear. People simply get each upgrade and don't have to think too much about its pro's or cons, the only con is resources required. Compare that to ME:1 weapon mods, was a certain ammount of Linearity with those too I-X for example, however there was also a much better element of choice.

Do you want a weapon that can fire forever? Yes? Then use two Frictionless Mats. Do you want to be able to see the enemies on the Radar? Yes? Then sub in a Combat Scanner. Do you want to do more damage over a shorter time frame? Yes? Then use two Scram Rails. Same with Ammo mods. Some people liked to use Explosive rounds in their Sniper Rifle which turned it into a rocket launcher. I preferred to be able to keep up constant fire so I used Shredder/Tungsten ammo and Fric Mats.

There was much greater choice for this kind of thing in ME:1 than ME:2 and hopefully with the re-introduction of weapon modding (in a new form) we will get back some of that level of choice.

*Edited for spelling and formatting derpery*

Modifié par Dave666, 10 avril 2011 - 04:13 .