127 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

In starting this thread, know that I have not seen every interview and trailer out there yet, so forgive me if something I list is confirmed or disconfirmed (is that a word?).  All my opinion, please keep flaming to a minimum.

What with all of the complaining about random stupid nonsense, I hope the devs don't listen to some of the following complaints.
1.  The ability to choose "none" for heavy weapons.  The only justification I've ever heard for people wanting this they never use them and they take up space on Shepard's back.  Talk about ridiculous.  Normally I'm all for the options, but these are development resources that can best be used elsewhere.
2.  As a follow-up to that: the ability to choose no weapons at all on biotic and tech classes.  Who really wants to spam powers the entire time?  Especially biotics, whose only damaging power is warp.  Adepts would become even more about "warp spam" than before, or would rely on their squaddies to actually kill enemies.  Again, development resources.
3.  Ship combat.  I just don't see any reason why we would be controlling a ship that isn't Normandy in combat.  And Joker flies the Normandy (or EDI).  Even if they could come up with a reason, Bioware doesn't have the best track record with vehicle combat.  Development resources.
4.  Punishing a style of play disproportionately to the decisions made.  I'm all for consequences, and I'd be pissed if there wasn't some kind of difference based on choices, but the game should still be completable regardless.  Each choice should have rippling effects, but not change the likelihood of winning.  For instance, saving the Rachni should have some kind of bonus.  Likewise, killing the Rachni should have some kind of bonus.  Different, but no punishments.
5.  Gratuitous nudity.  Granted, the fully clothed romance scenes in ME2 were rather ridiculous, but a full switch to total nudity is not the answer.  It doesn't fit the feel of Mass Effect, and kind of cheapens the romances when you actually see the "goods."  There are ways to show that the couple is nude and having sex without actually showing anything.  Camera angles, props, discretion shots, etc.  Tasteful, not gratuitous.

The other big ones that I thought of had already been confirmed out, like the removal of thermal clips or ammo skills or the return of the inventory screen.  Anyone else have things to add to the list?

[Kronner]

1) Why should I be forced to take a heavy weapon? IMHO heavy weapons suck, and I do not want them, at all.

4) Seriously? No punishments? What's the point of playing at all if ALL ways lead to the same end - "winning"?
I really hope there are either severe penalties and great bonuses for each decision. Shepard should be either punished OR rewarded for each major decision IMHO. And if somehow Shepard screwed it up..then tough luck..Reapers win.

Modifié par Kronner, 09 juin 2011 - 06:02 .

[JeffZero]

1.) Agreed.
2.) Uh, my girlfriend would love to be able to avoid using conventional weaponry altogether in favor of raw biotics, but that's just not quite how the games are balanced so despite her pipedreams, I still do have to agree with you.
3.) I'd like to see something happen maybe once toward the tail end of the trilogy's storyline, but I wouldn't be saddened by its lack.
4.) Agreed.
5.) I don't think gratuitous nudity is what too many people are asking for, you know. They're looking for tasteful, not grinding.

[TobyHasEyes]

Are there any adepts/engineers who want NO weapons? I have put forward before my hope that Adepts (and I suppose Engineers, though not of interest to me really) might be able to go through the game, as in ME1, equipped only with pistols (and smg's circa ME2).. basically just sidearms

Obviously I don't have to use any other weapons put upon the character, but for aesthetic value I would like to just carry sidearms and heavy weapons

[In Exile]

1) People just don't like the way it looks. Call it - the narcicism effect. Like asking for a helmet toggle.
2) Some people, apparently. Bioware still won't do it based on the magic power of cutscene weapons.
3) Agree.
4) Agree. I think choices should change the story and the world, but not (for example) make the game impossible.
5) You mean, you don't want essentially graphic oral sex like in TW2?

[TobyHasEyes]

From the Gamespot demo thread the weapon wheel shown has Liara only having the SMGs and Heavy Pistols, for Shepard too

Would also like my Adept to have all my melee moves have a biotic flavour, rather than using the omni-blade

[wizardryforever]

TobyHasEyes wrote...

Are there any adepts/engineers who want NO weapons? I have put forward before my hope that Adepts (and I suppose Engineers, though not of interest to me really) might be able to go through the game, as in ME1, equipped only with pistols (and smg's circa ME2).. basically just sidearms

Obviously I don't have to use any other weapons put upon the character, but for aesthetic value I would like to just carry sidearms and heavy weapons

Well until you get to the collector ship, you don't have to take any other weapons than what you listed.  Of course, in ME1 you had to take all those excess weapons.  And yes, I have seen people ask for the option to choose no weapons at all.

[sp0ck 06]

I don't think we should be able to directly control the Normandy in space combat, but a sequence where Shep is giving orders in the cockpit and then we watch those orders executed would be absolutely badass.

[silentassassin264]

I agree with 4 most definitely. I don't know what is this obsession with trying to punish renegades. Often times, the most logical choice without metagaming is the renegade choice. Choosing renegade options however usually results in losing content and a giant middle finger waving at you for the sake of a badass moment. I don't want ME3 to be a giant "congratulations you're winner" if you picked a bunch of paragon options and whoops you have to become an hero if went renegade.

[wizardryforever]

Kronner wrote...

1) Why should I be forced to take a heavy weapon? IMHO heavy weapons suck, and I do not want them, at all.

Development resources, man.  Development resources.

4) Seriously? No punishments? What's the point of playing at all if ALL ways lead to the same end - "winning"?
I really hope there are either severe penalties and great bonuses for each decision. Shepard should be either punished OR rewarded for each major decision IMHO. And if somehow Shepard screwed it up..then tough luck..Reapers win.

That would make choices pointless, as each choice would only have one "right" option.  This would enrage people who chose the other option, especially if these "right" options were always Paragon or always Renegade.

[thompsonaf]

I agree on all accounts, however let me add this nugget:

Have you ever programmed? Anything? Ever? The #1 suggestion would take 20 minutes to implement, It would involve adding a selection to the weapon screen for "None". Thats it, so the argument of "Well it takes away development resources" is not valid. An argument more suited to this is "Why would someone NOT want to carry a heavy weapon during a galactic war?"

[Someone With Mass]

If the heavy weapons aren't improved beyond their capabilities in ME2, then I don't want them.

And I think there's should be consequences for your actions if you decide to kill a pretty important character, simply because I don't think they should be replaced with someone that can fill their function and then everyone acts like nothing happened. It's poor writing.

[TobyHasEyes]

'Until you get to the Collector ship'.. yeh I was referring to Collector ship onwards. Also I was spurned to express this because magazine features on ME3 have suggested that the weapon specs for classes will now be based on number rather than specifically what type (aka some classes carry three weapons, but that can be SMG+Pistol+AssaultRifle, or Shotgun+SniperRifle+SMG etc.)

I am just hoping that they will make it so Adepts (along with Engineers and Sentinels) are limited to two slots, allowing for use of none-sidearms AND sidearm-exclusive loadouts

[RoninOmega]

I don't see whats wrong with adding ship combat...

[wizardryforever]

thompsonaf wrote...

I agree on all accounts, however let me add this nugget:

Have you ever programmed? Anything? Ever? The #1 suggestion would take 20 minutes to implement, It would involve adding a selection to the weapon screen for "None". Thats it, so the argument of "Well it takes away development resources" is not valid. An argument more suited to this is "Why would someone NOT want to carry a heavy weapon during a galactic war?"

That 20 minutes could still be better spent elsewhere.  It doesn't matter how small the amount of resources is, it could still be better spent elsewhere.  Besides, if it is as easy as you say, then some of these people should make a mod and use it.  And yes, it baffles me that people choose not to use heavy weapons at all.

[Kronner]

wizardryforever wrote...
Development resources, man.  Development resources.

What about it? It's a simple toggle that can be added in between coffee breaks.
If you want to talk about resources, then from my point of view..why bother with heavy weapons at all.
And what makes your opinion right? Not including heavy weapons at all would save much more resources.

wizardryforever wrote...
That would make choices pointless, as each choice would only have one "right" option.  This would enrage people who chose the other option, especially if these "right" options were always Paragon or always Renegade.

Yeah, and that's how it is. Most decisions have one "right" option and one (or more) slightly worse or even wrong option.

Modifié par Kronner, 09 juin 2011 - 06:12 .

[RoninOmega]

wizardryforever wrote...

thompsonaf wrote...

I agree on all accounts, however let me add this nugget:

Have you ever programmed? Anything? Ever? The #1 suggestion would take 20 minutes to implement, It would involve adding a selection to the weapon screen for "None". Thats it, so the argument of "Well it takes away development resources" is not valid. An argument more suited to this is "Why would someone NOT want to carry a heavy weapon during a galactic war?"

That 20 minutes could still be better spent elsewhere.  It doesn't matter how small the amount of resources is, it could still be better spent elsewhere.  Besides, if it is as easy as you say, then some of these people should make a mod and use it.  And yes, it baffles me that people choose not to use heavy weapons at all.

They've already delayed the game until march 2012 or so, so it really doesn't matter if they waste 20 minutes on one small feature...  Jeeze...

[wizardryforever]

Someone With Mass wrote...

And I think there's should be consequences for your actions if you decide to kill a pretty important character, simply because I don't think they should be replaced with someone that can fill their function and then everyone acts like nothing happened. It's poor writing.

I said punishments disproportionate to the choice, not punishments at all.  For instance, you can have punishments for minor choices (like letting Elnora go, or killing Shiala), but the big choices should not have punishments.  Just different rewards.  There should be no obvious "right" choice as far as the game is concerned.

[thompsonaf]

wizardryforever wrote...

thompsonaf wrote...

I agree on all accounts, however let me add this nugget:

Have you ever programmed? Anything? Ever? The #1 suggestion would take 20 minutes to implement, It would involve adding a selection to the weapon screen for "None". Thats it, so the argument of "Well it takes away development resources" is not valid. An argument more suited to this is "Why would someone NOT want to carry a heavy weapon during a galactic war?"

That 20 minutes could still be better spent elsewhere.  It doesn't matter how small the amount of resources is, it could still be better spent elsewhere.  Besides, if it is as easy as you say, then some of these people should make a mod and use it.  And yes, it baffles me that people choose not to use heavy weapons at all.

Some people did, you can mod the c.ini file in the ME2 directory to remove heavy weapons, unless BW drastically changes the file system of ME3 it should still be possible.

[CroGamer002]

Kronner wrote...

1) Why should I be forced to take a heavy weapon? IMHO heavy weapons suck, and I do not want them, at all.

Heavy weapons suck?

[Garlador]

1. I'll be honest and say I rarely used heavy weapons, and I honestly did hate the fact that some of them just consumed the space on Shepard's back (to the point of getting in the way of cutscenes and conversations). I tried to give him the smallest heavy weapons I could fit just to ensure they didn't block people's faces.
2. I wouldn't mind a weapon-less adept, but the game is so focused on gunplay it would be silly to drop it now, or at least deny them the option of carting a pistol.
3. No ship combat is fine by me. I barely can handle Mako and Firewalker combat as it is.
4. I actually do like games that have consequences, negative ones, for decisions made, even if you made a good decision or a bad decision. Maybe something you thought was a good idea (cure the genophage) ultimately becomes a bad one (the Krogan take over as the next most-powerful threat after the Reapers) or killing the Rachni Queen ensures the Rachni won't come to your aid in the final battle, lessening your chances of survival.
5. You know, I actually WOULD like some tasteful nudity in the game. And by that, I don't mean I even want to see anything. I'm fine not seeing a single naughty part. But I'd like to have them do more than grind with their clothes on (*cough* Miranda *cough*). ME1 did it very well with tasteful camera angles, lighting, music. It was very intimate, special, sexual, and believable. It didn't feel forced or unnatural. I would like something akin to that to return.

[Kronner]

Mesina2 wrote...

Kronner wrote...

1) Why should I be forced to take a heavy weapon? IMHO heavy weapons suck, and I do not want them, at all.

Heavy weapons suck?


Why?

Because IMHO they are ridiculous and do not fit the game. And because I prefer killing with "regular" weapons..just much more fun. The idea of elite marine bringing super big uber weapon on his back for a mission is ridiculous.

[CroGamer002]

Kronner wrote...

What about it? It's a simple toggle that can be added in between coffee breaks.
If you want to talk about resources, then from my point of view..why bother with heavy weapons at all.
And what makes your opinion right? Not including heavy weapons at all would save much more resources.

It doesn't make your opinion invalid though you're the only person I ever heard that said heavy weapons suck.
And heavy weapons were highly praised and loved by both fans and critics.




Also why do you want to remove heavy weapons? They're not using same slot as rest of weapons.

[wizardryforever]

Kronner wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
Development resources, man.  Development resources.

What about it? It's a simple toggle that can be added in between coffee breaks.
If you want to talk about resources, then from my point of view..why bother with heavy weapons at all.
And what makes your opinion right? Not including heavy weapons at all would save much more resources.

wizardryforever wrote...
That would make choices pointless, as each choice would only have one "right" option.  This would enrage people who chose the other option, especially if these "right" options were always Paragon or always Renegade.

Yeah, and that's how it is. Most decisions have one "right" option and one (or more) slightly worse or even wrong option.

Heavy weapons are already there, it would take effort (however miniscule) to remove them when it would take none to leave them in.  It seems rather pointless to remove them because some people don't like the aesthetics.

And no, at least as far as the game goes, there is almost never one "right" decision.  Paragon/Renegade is not right/wrong (or wrong/right) in any situation, but especially the big choice situations.  The choice should make you think, not pick the obvious option.

[amcnow]

Drastic changes in sexual orientation for returning love interests comes to mind. I'm sorry; but we're talking about complaints to which the devs shouldn't listen. This one has to be brought up.

Changing an orientation to bi-sexual is fine since it doesn't disturb the flow of current romances and, therefore, can easily be written into lore. Changing from straight (or bi) to full blown gay is just NO! Ashley, Kaidan, and Miranda are the three characters which seem to come up most often in this regard.

I know confusion is usually the main culprit. However, people need to understand (on both sides of the argument) the difference between being bi-sexual and simply being gay. Don't start a thread about "Kaidan for gay romance" and not expect to get opposition, especially when the OP of said thread fails to clarify he/she actually means bi-sexual (which happens often). And for Christ's sake, stop trolling your own threads...