174 réponses à ce sujet

[Commander Shep4rd]

Bump! i want moar opinions

[GenericPlayer2]

I voted no because I think it punishes people who make full use of tactics and powers to flank the enemy quickly and move on. I don't think sitting in cover shooting waves and waves of enemies should be rewarded.

[Fozz20]

Voted yes because the game has so much action/shooting that you wouldn't be able to build up your character except for talking to other NPC's and your squad mates. I liked the ME1 xp system but I didn't go around hunting for enemies just for extra points like some people are saying.

[Terror_K]

Fozz20 wrote...

Voted yes because the game has so much action/shooting that you wouldn't be able to build up your character except for talking to other NPC's and your squad mates. I liked the ME1 xp system but I didn't go around hunting for enemies just for extra points like some people are saying.

The good thing about the ME1 system was it actually rewarded the explorers more, thus encouraging people to make an effort to play more of the game and go out of their way to look around the levels. When you can just rush through things and get the same XP there's no real incentive to look around, especially when its so damn easy to max-level your character in one playthrough anyway. Sure... credits, items and resources were a reward I guess, but given what XP is supposed to mean, I don't understand why a player who just mows down the enemies in a straight line without much thought or effort should get the same reward as somebody who explores more and perhaps even finds alternate options.

That said, ME2's levels were pretty damn linear, thus there weren't that many other options and you almost tripped over everything you could come across anyway. If there had been a level like Noveria in Mass Effect 2 that gave you a mission like the garage pass one, it would be extremely unfair for those who simply tossed Opold's package to Anoleis to get the pass to get the same amount of XP as those who talked to Gianna, then Lorik, then went into the office and fought the guards, then talked to Gianna again and then to Lorik again, etc. But that's the way ME2 did things: the quick solution with next to no effort is rewarded the same as the more convoluted and clever ones. It's like every player in the game is getting an A+ no matter how well they succeed or not.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 mai 2011 - 01:08 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Terror_K wrote...

*snip*

Tru dat.

And his name is LORIK QUINN!

[Terror_K]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
And his name is LORIK QUINN!

Whoops... mixing up my turians. Fixed.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Terror_K wrote...

The good thing about the ME1 system was it actually rewarded the explorers more, thus encouraging people to make an effort to play more of the game and go out of their way to look around the levels. When you can just rush through things and get the same XP there's no real incentive to look around, especially when its so damn easy to max-level your character in one playthrough anyway. Sure... credits, items and resources were a reward I guess, but given what XP is supposed to mean, I don't understand why a player who just mows down the enemies in a straight line without much thought or effort should get the same reward as somebody who explores more and perhaps even finds alternate options.

That said, ME2's levels were pretty damn linear, thus there weren't that many other options and you almost tripped over everything you could come across anyway. If there had been a level like Noveria in Mass Effect 2 that gave you a mission like the garage pass one, it would be extremely unfair for those who simply tossed Opold's package to Anoleis to get the pass to get the same amount of XP as those who talked to Gianna, then Septimus, then went into the office and fought the guards, then talked to Gianna again and then to Septimus again, etc. But that's the way ME2 did things: the quick solution with next to no effort is rewarded the same as the more convoluted and clever ones. It's like every player in the game is getting an A+ no matter how well they succeed or not.

Cases like Noveria also created the "I don't know which is the best path" problem, and makes people worried about missing content or exp, and eventually they'll look up faqs in order to know all the options available to them than actually interact with the game to experience the result of their choices themselves. People often like to say more options is better, but their true nature is the complete opposite. Just look at the current paragon/renegade system: it can cut you off from certain content/dialog/outcomes just like Noveria, but some people want all of their options available upfront no matter what their alignment.

It's the same people who say "I love the idea of dancing," but they actually don't dance themselves.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 27 mai 2011 - 01:11 .

[RPGamer13]

I love experience for kill and didn't much care for ME2's way of experience. I don't like to be forced to have the same stuff for an entire mission because your only source of it is from getting through the mission.

That also makes me want to run past the enemies I can so I can get through a mission faster.

On Insanity I found out how I could run past all the enemies to hit the switches in the last mission like I had done on Casual.

[nubbers666]

i personaly loved the me1 level system compared to me2
i do hope they bring it back

[Commander Shep4rd]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The good thing about the ME1 system was it actually rewarded the explorers more, thus encouraging people to make an effort to play more of the game and go out of their way to look around the levels. When you can just rush through things and get the same XP there's no real incentive to look around, especially when its so damn easy to max-level your character in one playthrough anyway. Sure... credits, items and resources were a reward I guess, but given what XP is supposed to mean, I don't understand why a player who just mows down the enemies in a straight line without much thought or effort should get the same reward as somebody who explores more and perhaps even finds alternate options.

That said, ME2's levels were pretty damn linear, thus there weren't that many other options and you almost tripped over everything you could come across anyway. If there had been a level like Noveria in Mass Effect 2 that gave you a mission like the garage pass one, it would be extremely unfair for those who simply tossed Opold's package to Anoleis to get the pass to get the same amount of XP as those who talked to Gianna, then Septimus, then went into the office and fought the guards, then talked to Gianna again and then to Septimus again, etc. But that's the way ME2 did things: the quick solution with next to no effort is rewarded the same as the more convoluted and clever ones. It's like every player in the game is getting an A+ no matter how well they succeed or not.

Cases like Noveria also created the "I don't know which is the best path" problem, and makes people worried about missing content or exp, and eventually they'll look up faqs in order to know all the options available to them than actually interact with the game to experience the result of their choices themselves. People often like to say more options is better, but their true nature is the complete opposite. Just look at the current paragon/renegade system: it can cut you off from certain content/dialog/outcomes just like Noveria, but some people want all of their options available upfront no matter what their alignment.

It's the same people who say "I love the idea of dancing," but they actually don't dance themselves.

Yeah i first wanted to discover everything before going through the story path but i didn't know which path was what i wanted to get the create a cure sidequest first before progressing but stupidly though it was supposed to be part of the story,
ended up at the benezia fight last time i saved was a LOOOOOONG time ago and couldn't be bothered to turn 50 items into omni gel again killed her easily because i was on causal and a soldier then realized i couldn't go back to do the sidequest again it was just ugggh.

[wepeel_]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Cases like Noveria also created the "I don't know which is the best path" problem, and makes people worried about missing content or exp, and eventually they'll look up faqs in order to know all the options available to them than actually interact with the game to experience the result of their choices themselves. People often like to say more options is better, but their true nature is the complete opposite. Just look at the current paragon/renegade system: it can cut you off from certain content/dialog/outcomes just like Noveria, but some people want all of their options available upfront no matter what their alignment.

It's the same people who say "I love the idea of dancing," but they actually don't dance themselves.

Well, if a player says he likes having choices and then looks a scenario and its outcomes up in an faq, that doesn't mean that he actually wanted less choices and more linearity. I'd still say it's better to present the players with options and then let them choose - or if they so prefer, look up all possible outcomes and then choose - they might enjoy it that way too.

[InfiniteCuts]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Cases like Noveria also created the "I don't know which is the best path" problem, and makes people worried about missing content or exp, and eventually they'll look up faqs in order to know all the options available to them than actually interact with the game to experience the result of their choices themselves. People often like to say more options is better, but their true nature is the complete opposite. Just look at the current paragon/renegade system: it can cut you off from certain content/dialog/outcomes just like Noveria, but some people want all of their options available upfront no matter what their alignment.

It's the same people who say "I love the idea of dancing," but they actually don't dance themselves.

If someone is taking the time to look up faqs and such, it's likely because they actually enjoy the game and want to get the "best" result, whatever they think that might be.  I don't see how this is a bad thing.  Obviously, a faq is not required to get through Noveria.  Also, having more options in a game does not mean they have to be difficult to access.  In general, I wish more developers would stop underestimating their audience's intelligence and patience.  The solution to the issues you bring up is not to give us everything on a silver platter.

On topic: I agree that XP should be given on a per-enemy basis and not just awarded at the end of a mission.  This adds a more dynamic feel to your character's progress.  I think different types of enemies should offer different amounts of XP and that bonuses should be awarded based on how you kill them, how effeciently you complete a mission, casualties, etc.  I'm really trying to get people's knee-jerk reaction to complexity... why are you even playing a game like Mass Effect if you can't be bothered with the finer details?

[Epic777]

wepeel_ wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Cases like Noveria also created the "I don't know which is the best path" problem, and makes people worried about missing content or exp, and eventually they'll look up faqs in order to know all the options available to them than actually interact with the game to experience the result of their choices themselves. People often like to say more options is better, but their true nature is the complete opposite. Just look at the current paragon/renegade system: it can cut you off from certain content/dialog/outcomes just like Noveria, but some people want all of their options available upfront no matter what their alignment.

It's the same people who say "I love the idea of dancing," but they actually don't dance themselves.

Well, if a player says he likes having choices and then looks a scenario and its outcomes up in an faq, that doesn't mean that he actually wanted less choices and more linearity. I'd still say it's better to present the players with options and then let them choose - or if they so prefer, look up all possible outcomes and then choose - they might enjoy it that way too.

If all choices are equal in XP I would agree it works. Personally I am not a fan of XP for killing indivdual enemies, it just creates a 'kill 'em all attitude' instead of finding ways to complete certain tasks. 

Modifié par Epic777, 27 mai 2011 - 01:57 .

[Someone With Mass]

ME3 will reward those who are doing the side missions.

And there will be more stuff to buy in the stores, so you don't have to trip over it. Just FYI.

[Tony Gunslinger]

InfiniteCuts wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Cases like Noveria also created the "I don't know which is the best path" problem, and makes people worried about missing content or exp, and eventually they'll look up faqs in order to know all the options available to them than actually interact with the game to experience the result of their choices themselves. People often like to say more options is better, but their true nature is the complete opposite. Just look at the current paragon/renegade system: it can cut you off from certain content/dialog/outcomes just like Noveria, but some people want all of their options available upfront no matter what their alignment.

It's the same people who say "I love the idea of dancing," but they actually don't dance themselves.

If someone is taking the time to look up faqs and such, it's likely because they actually enjoy the game and want to get the "best" result, whatever they think that might be.  I don't see how this is a bad thing.  Obviously, a faq is not required to get through Noveria.  Also, having more options in a game does not mean they have to be difficult to access.  In general, I wish more developers would stop underestimating their audience's intelligence and patience.  The solution to the issues you bring up is not to give us everything on a silver platter.

On topic: I agree that XP should be given on a per-enemy basis and not just awarded at the end of a mission.  This adds a more dynamic feel to your character's progress.  I think different types of enemies should offer different amounts of XP and that bonuses should be awarded based on how you kill them, how effeciently you complete a mission, casualties, etc.  I'm really trying to get people's knee-jerk reaction to complexity... why are you even playing a game like Mass Effect if you can't be bothered with the finer details?

My point was that any 'system' is going to get gamed no matter what because that's a player choice, but the key factors are how the narrative and the situation themselves are written/illustrated that encourages or discourages player exploration.

So in regard to XP for killing, I don't mind one way or the other because both have advantages and disadvantages. ME2's missions were very objective-based; extracting archangel, escape from the geth base, etc, where killing isn't the point, and enemies were really obstacles. Despite the linearity, you were making tactical choices; how to kill fast, how infiltrate, how to defend and survive. Killing for points would make these conflicts would seem more arcade-y and undermines the seriousness of the situations IMO. But if the levels were designed to be more open with multiple objectives at once (ie: killing a wanted criminal along the way, etc) then killing for points makes sense.

[Terror_K]

InfiniteCuts wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Cases like Noveria also created the "I don't know which is the best path" problem, and makes people worried about missing content or exp, and eventually they'll look up faqs in order to know all the options available to them than actually interact with the game to experience the result of their choices themselves. People often like to say more options is better, but their true nature is the complete opposite. Just look at the current paragon/renegade system: it can cut you off from certain content/dialog/outcomes just like Noveria, but some people want all of their options available upfront no matter what their alignment.

It's the same people who say "I love the idea of dancing," but they actually don't dance themselves.

If someone is taking the time to look up faqs and such, it's likely because they actually enjoy the game and want to get the "best" result, whatever they think that might be.  I don't see how this is a bad thing.  Obviously, a faq is not required to get through Noveria.  Also, having more options in a game does not mean they have to be difficult to access.

The thing is, this is when metagaming comes into play. Whether one does it or not is really up to the player, but if somebody is just constantly trying to get the best result or the most XP, they aren't really roleplaying at all. With any RPG if you are truly roleplaying you should be making the dialogue choices and taking the paths that the Shepard you are playing would realistically take according to how you've designed them.

One could say that when XP is a set constant no matter what you do it will curb metaplaying somewhat, as players are less likely to take "the best/msot rewarding" route when all routes are equally rewarding when it comes to pure reward payoffs, but then we run back into the problem of XP becoming next to meaningless and pointless, like it is in ME2. In the end its up to the player if they want to metagame or really roleplay though.

The problem with the Paragon/Renegade system (at least in ME2) is different, because it suffers from a poorly thought out self-feeding system where the result also determines the strength, which doesn't work at all and restricts proper roleplaying by generally forcing players into picking one side over the other to make certain dialogue choices. The paths like the ones on Noveria don't have that restriction and are purely dictated by choice (beyond perhaps having to have a strong enough Charm or Intimidate to choose certain options, though that's a factor throughout, and at least in ME1 a player can boost themselves better without having to skew and screw their character's actual morality).

In general, I wish more developers would stop underestimating their audience's intelligence and patience.  The solution to the issues you bring up is not to give us everything on a silver platter.

A problem BioWare has been suffering lately I feel, and the reason I refer to ME2 as feeling like "Fisher Price: My First RPG" quite often: it's not just that in BioWare's attempt to branch out to those who normally don't touch RPGs because of their complexity that it's been streamlined and watered down that's the issue, it's that the whole thing is presented in a manner that's so simplistic and hand-holding that it's insulting to my intelligence. ME1 was presented in a manner that felt like it assumed you'd played RPGs before and knew the basics at the very least... ME2 feels like it was designed so that a five year old could get it without any chance of being confused. In its attempt to make sure the average gamer can "get it" it's become almost condescendingly basic.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Terror_K wrote...

The problem with the Paragon/Renegade system (at least in ME2) is different, because it suffers from a poorly thought out self-feeding system where the result also determines the strength, which doesn't work at all and restricts proper roleplaying by generally forcing players into picking one side over the other to make certain dialogue choices. The paths like the ones on Noveria don't have that restriction and are purely dictated by choice (beyond perhaps having to have a strong enough Charm or Intimidate to choose certain options, though that's a factor throughout, and at least in ME1 a player can boost themselves better without having to skew and screw their character's actual morality).

A problem BioWare has been suffering lately I feel, and the reason I refer to ME2 as feeling like "Fisher Price: My First RPG" quite often: it's not just that in BioWare's attempt to branch out to those who normally don't touch RPGs because of their complexity that it's been streamlined and watered down that's the issue, it's that the whole thing is presented in a manner that's so simplistic and hand-holding that it's insulting to my intelligence. ME1 was presented in a manner that felt like it assumed you'd played RPGs before and knew the basics at the very least... ME2 feels like it was designed so that a five year old could get it without any chance of being confused. In its attempt to make sure the average gamer can "get it" it's become almost condescendingly basic.

I don't mean to take this off-topic so I'll as brief as possible. But in regards to ME1's system, the persuasion difficulties were set, which means that in order to get your 'desired' result, you had to level up in a specific order of missions. In ME2, persuasion strength is determined by a percentage, so you have more flexiblity in terms of order of play. Both have good and bad points, neither are perfect. Personally, I like consequences given to my actions, and the way ME2 is set up, it makes me feel that being a leader is tough because I'm pressured into taking sides, and that being 'reasonable' or 'neutral' doesn't get the best results. Take a look at this board for instance. The staunchiest one-sided fanatics seems to take over the conversation than the ones who have mixed opinons.

[The Spamming Troll]

do you mean you only earn XP is shepard makes the last shot killing the enemy, or any enemy death yields earned XP?

i think shepard should earn XP for almost everything. anything im doing, it is actually gaining experience if nothing else, so why not earn XP for doing so?

[Gatt9]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, this is when metagaming comes into play. Whether one does it or not is really up to the player, but if somebody is just constantly trying to get the best result or the most XP, they aren't really roleplaying at all. With any RPG if you are truly roleplaying you should be making the dialogue choices and taking the paths that the Shepard you are playing would realistically take according to how you've designed them.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here a little,  you're not wrong,  but I'm seeing it a little differently.

Defintions:

RPg player = RolePlaying gamers,  whose primary focus is Roleplaying.
rpG player = roleplaying Gamers,  whose primary focus is on Gaming and roleplaying isn't as critical.

There are RPg players (Roleplayers, LARPsers) and there are rpG players (Munchkins, Monty-Hauls, Min-Maxers),  all of the playstyles are technically valid according to pretty much every rule set.

The Rules require you to Roleplay your Character,  this is true.  But the rules also establish another framework which is metagaming related.  Some people get their thrills from the Roleplaying of the Character,  others get their thrills from the metagaming of the Character.

One of the bigger problems is that you cannot put certain groups together in the same room without some kind of nerdmaggedon.  Roleplayers cannot mix with any rpGers,  I've seen truely titanic fits over someone not speaking Olde English and "Breaking my immersion!".  Munchkins are generally not appriciated by any group.  LARPsers and Min-Maxers do not do well together.

So to be honest,  I don't see a reason to tank the Xp per kill system for the preferences of the RPg players,  the system does not interfere with their gameplay at all,  and facilitates the rpG players quite well.  It's a good comprimise that is flexible enough to meet both groups needs.

rpG players are a perfectly valid playstyle,  it doesn't conflict with any of the rules,  it just conflicts heavily with the RPg player's playstyle in that you cannot mix the two groups without a major conflict arising.

A problem BioWare has been suffering lately I feel, and the reason I refer to ME2 as feeling like "Fisher Price: My First RPG" quite often: it's not just that in BioWare's attempt to branch out to those who normally don't touch RPGs because of their complexity that it's been streamlined and watered down that's the issue, it's that the whole thing is presented in a manner that's so simplistic and hand-holding that it's insulting to my intelligence. ME1 was presented in a manner that felt like it assumed you'd played RPGs before and knew the basics at the very least... ME2 feels like it was designed so that a five year old could get it without any chance of being confused. In its attempt to make sure the average gamer can "get it" it's become almost condescendingly basic.

I agree.

But I think Bioware's problem with ME2 was that they were trying too hard to be a Shooter,  and to entice Shooter fans,  at the expense of RPGers.  I suspect Bioware designed ME2 such that the Shooter fan was expected to drive along a straight path without wanting to deviate,  and they didn't want them to miss "Critical" stuff.  Which is also why I believe shops offered almost nothing usefull.

IMO,  Bioware tried to hard to make a Shooter,  and ended up losing site of the importance of exploration and aquiring stuff in an RPG.

Edit:

As evidence,  I offer up one of the text's from a loading screen.

"You have to talk to people to start a romance"

Clearly Bioware had such low expectations of some group of Player's understanding of anything but the Shooter gameplay that they felt they needed to remind them that there's dialogue.  That right there says an enourmous amount about what kind of crowd they thought would be playing the game.  Obviously,  they did not think they'd be RPGers.  It's not like RPGs are a niche,  Oblivion,  Fable,  Final Fantasy,  it's not like Dialogue is new or anything.  So they could only have been thinking they were selling the game to people who do not play RPGs at all,  which is mainly Shooter fans.

Modifié par Gatt9, 27 mai 2011 - 03:27 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

^ See what I mean? You win, TST:D

[Gatt9]

(Deleted)

Modifié par Gatt9, 27 mai 2011 - 03:34 .

[Bluko]

Nyoka wrote...

What I have a problem with is the leveling up in the middle of a fight. I like the idea of leaving the normandy and now you're on your own, and only when you get back to safety can you research upgrades and learn new abilities and improve some of the abilities you already had, as a part of the preparations for the next mission. Not really a fan of "kill 30 people and ta-da, now you can pull!"

Maybe it would be good if you got XP for enemy killed but you could only use them after finishing the current mission, so the more people you kill, the more points you get at the end.

One to thing to note is you can still spend skill points during the middle of missions in ME2. While ME2 goes out of it's way to make you level up before each missions (good in my books) you can still do cheeky things like advance a power mid-mission. And frankly I don't see what's wrong with that. I mean if I have to 2 Squad Points left is it wrong if in mid-mission I decide I actually want 1 point in Cyro Ammo for some reason?



Ideally I would have the game reward specific types of XP. Or in order to level up abilities you should actually have to use them a certain number of times to as such gain "experince" with them. Honestly that would be preferable to the whole level system to me. But this is difficult to implement and leads to people spamming certain abilities for no reason in the quickest way possible.

I dunno about you, but to me there is something rewarding about defeating a difficult Boss and getting a ton of XP for my efforts. See this is what I don't like. I'm pretty sure you get the same amount of XP whether or not you kill the Threwsher Maw in Grunt's mission. Really? I spent all that time trying to kill that thing and for what? Video game bragging rights?

The thing is not giving out XP for kills essentially rewards the lazy or inept.

Mass Effect is not a Stealth game. You cannot sneak past enemies. You are almost always traveling with a Squad. And I doubt Bioware has the chops to make a Squad based Stealth Game to boot. There is no element of Stealth other then say making use of sneak attacks via Tactical Cloak. You can only run past enemies and or break the spawns as means to actually avoid fighting. Sorry but that ain't stealth. That's just lazyness, if not cowardice to some degree.

If you want to get through the game faster that's a reward in and of itself. You save time, but lose XP. What do I get if spend more time to kill all the enemies instead of running? Nothing I am simply wasting my time as it were. I don't like that. I didn't like slowly slugging through all the Loki Mechs in the Crashed Mech Missions and then as a result getting nothing for it. I would have been better off taking my chances running madly like a headless chicken to the shuttle instead. Is that how a hero solves problems? By running away from them? Not much of a Hero if all you do is run at the nearest sign of trouble simply to save yourself some effort. Eh who cares these Husks are attacking this city? Someone else will just magically take care of them for me once I board this shuttle right?


I think the only reason XP is being opposed here is because people feel the need to meta-game everything, even if it's something as miniscule as turning on a light gives you +10 XP so that you must take that into account in your playthrough. If you're that obessive about leveling that's your own problem. I don't look at  F.A.Q.s or strategy guides before playing every game. I look at them only when I shockingly only actually need help. It's not as if you need to be a certain level to fight enemies as they are all more or less scaled. I mean if you mined every planet til it was depleted that was entirely your own fault. (True it would be nice if you could get actually get something like I dunno credits for mining additional resources.)

I just want to get something for actually playing the game. If there's no gameplay value to killing the enemies why am I suppose to kill them? Why are they there? Forget Mass Effect has a story or anything like that. Let's pretend it is for just an instant, simply an arcade game. You know just a simple game that you play for fun and not some novel story. Wouldn't you say it's pretty lame if you can beat a combat game by not fighting anything? That's like beating Space Invaders by hiding behind the walls the entire duration to win and not killing a single alien. Surely that would have made the game more fun by encouraging such a strategy.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...


So to be honest,  I don't see a reason to tank the Xp per kill system for the preferences of the RPg players,  the system does not interfere with their gameplay at all,  and facilitates the rpG players quite well.  It's a good comprimise that is flexible enough to meet both groups needs..

I don't see how this follows. Not having kill XP doesn't mean folks who want to metagame can't metagame. It just means that the strategies used when metagaming are different.

[jwalker]

Nyoka wrote...

Overall I believe xp per mission and items/upgrades/credits/a few xp (like when Aria thanks you for giving her the datapad) as an extra for exploration is fair. It's not an A+, it's a Mission Complete. You got it done either way. It's fair to give players the same xp if they complete the mission the way they want. For example, if you are playing a no nonsense renegade who doesn't have time for petty clerk grudges, you get the pass to the garage as soon as possible, because that's what matters to your mission. If you implement different ways to complete a mission, but you favor one particular way of doing it more than the others, you are actually limiting roleplaying possibilities, because although you still can choose to do things in the "less xp" way (if you reeeally like it), the game would be discouraging you from doing so. On the other hand, if what the game rewards is success (the action of actually getting the job done), then the game doesn't favor any particular way of doing things and you can play the way you want without feeling a bit silly whenever you deliberately choose the "less xp" way because that's the way your character would do it.

Now, if you clutter the mission's locations with stuff the player can get, then it's fair that she won't get stuff if she doesn't bother going where those items are. I think this is a fair way of rewarding exploration. The difference is these items are physical objects the character have to pick up (If there's a pistol in a locker, then you have to go there to pick it up), it doesn't make sense to get them magically at the end of the mission. Experience on the other hand is an abstract thing which values what you got out of it in terms of personal (character) growth.

Honestly, I wouldn't touch the ME2 system.

Not everybody plays these kind of games the same way. There's no "right" way to play it.

There are people who like getting the most experience in every map/level or whatever because is fun and they don't care much about the character and what (s)he's supposed to do in a given situation. If that is accomplished by killing every sob in the room, so what ?

On the other hand, if you care about your character and the story, you choose the path that makes the most sense. What do you care if you miss some experience ?

I think rewarding for killing enemies doesn't discourage anything. It just depends on how do you like to play the game. Rewarding exploration and such, gives more options to the player.

In ME1, you were rewarded for killing everything on foot. That was cool.
If you cared about that and  you took the time and effort, you got more experience. Fair reward. If you didn't care and didn't bother, why should you get it anyway ?