127 réponses à ce sujet

[Admoniter]

wizardryforever wrote...
1.

Disagree, I don't find ME2 heavy weapons to be particularly enjoyable. Furthermore how many resources coul honestly go into making a toggle; while we're at it why not give those who opt out of using a heavy weapon a movement speed/ accuracy bonus. player choice.

2.

No real arguement there.

3.

This one doesn't really matter to me either way.

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.

Disagree all decisions should have negative and positive consequences. That's not to say that the player should be absolutely screwed from the word go because of their import but different challenges should be added/removed based on their actions. Neither style should have everything coming up aces for them.

5.

As long as it is tasteful I don't mind nudity.

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?

Ammo powers blow; I can deal with TCs so long as they are tweaked so that they are not blatantly obvious magazines mascarading as disposable heat sinks.

Modifié par Admoniter, 10 juin 2011 - 06:21 .

[Nimander]

I find that most people who want 'major negative consequences' want to punish people who chose differently. You see it a /lot/ on the fanatical Renegade type player -- and from time to time on Paragon. I can't count the number of times I've seen Renegades go on and on about how the Rachni better bone the Paragons or else, or to a lesser extent saving the Council. Paragons tend to hit the Renegades with the Collector base.

This game is not going to be one where only one path is going to 'win'. It's going to have a lot of ramifications, I think. Some positive, some negative, some both.

All my opinions.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think the concept of winning doesn't mean what people think it means in an RPG.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 juin 2011 - 07:56 .

[Vena_86]

Mesina2 wrote...

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.

Some people think they look clunky and take too much space on Shepards back. I would still use heavy weapons most of the time but I can still understand the argument. The option of "none" for a slot takes up very little resources and would be greatly appreciated.

[Turran]

I just don't see this complaint about heavy weapons.. I personally, when running into an unknown battle where I do not know the enemy or what is going to be around a corner, would really like the idea of bringing something that I could quickly rely on if it is a giant squid-alien man with 3000 laser eyes..

[UJN]

1. Why not? In ME2 you don't carry any heavy weapon until you find the first one, and the heavy weapons are never required. Just adding the option of carrying no heavy weapon shouldn't require much work. I never used any heavy weapons myself, but I would still carry one. However, I don't see any problem with giving people the option not to.

2. In this case they would have to add an unarmed combat stance, and that feels like a waste of resources. Giving people the option to just carry one weapon (a pistol for example) feels like a better alternative.

3. Feels a bit redundant, but if they want to add it I won't complain.

4. Agree. You shoud never get punished for any decision. However, I don't see anything wrong with one decision resulting in a better outcome than another. Taking the Rachni queen for example, killing her might result in nothing special happening. Saving her might, on the other hand, result in the Rachni aiding you in the war, making some part of the game easier. In this case, saving her can be seen as the better option but since that is unknown to players who choose to kill her, they won't feel punished. Instead, they might think that they avoided an additional threat. Having an NPC talking about the horrors of the Rachni wars can emphasize this even more.

5. I think the romance scene at the end of shadow broker was sufficient. It clearly implies what happens next and then skips to the "morning after" or whatever. More than that is just superfluous.

[Lumikki]

Nimander wrote...

I find that most people who want 'major negative consequences' want to punish people who chose differently.

This has nothing to do with punising people who choose differently. We don't even know what to choose to have positive effect. This is about that if we players do choose in the game something, those choises should mean something. The meaning doesn't have to be big, but at least little bit every choise should affect something. If choises doesn't ever mean anything, why to have choise at all.

[TexasToast712]

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.

I agree.

I hope the devs dont listen to the people whining about wanting ammo powers removed from skill trees.

[olymind1]

in ME1 and ME2 sometimes i notice decisions and consequences is a matter of perspective, and not good and evil decisions:

Rachni Queen:
- if you let her live is considered a paragon choice, because you don't want the last of her spiecies to die (simply good guy, non racist); or you let her live because you're expecting from her to help you later (cold and calculated)
- if you kill her, it is considered a renegade choice, because you don't want any more powerful spiecies appear in the galaxy (evil approach, racist); or you kill her because you don't want to take the chance that maybe the Reapers indoctrinates them again (but it doesn't necessary make you evil)

same goes for the Geth
- paragon: you rewirte them to simply help them, or because you are evil and calculated, and expect help from them
- renegade: you eradicate them because you don't want them to overpopulate, or you don't want to take the chance that the reapers will overwrite them

Collector Base:
- i understand that leaving the base intact is renegade option, but not exactly evil. why? because you want to study the Collector/Reaper technology to counter them. so using Collector and Geth weapons is also renegade? or using Mass Relays... i don't think so. btw i was sorry that there wasn't an option to give the base to the Alliance or to the Council.

but sometimes are simply good and evil decisions:
- help someone because you are a good guy
- shoot / punch / kill someone because you are evil and violent

my point with ME1-2 decisions is this:
in ME3 there would/should be long term consequences from previous games where:
- the paragon options - bite you in the ass
- renegade options - help you in some ways
because in ME1-2 you don't know how that decisions' effect will surface in ME3, in a way those were short sighted decisions.

also i would like to see in ME3 something similar, for example:
you let the Rachni Queen live and:
- you will make some paragon decision and have positive effect about the race, or something renegade and you get negative, and they turn against you
or the collector base if you decided to keep it, which is renegade and cerberus owns it
- at some point you make a decision to take it back, and share it with the rest of the galaxy (paragon), or just for humanity (renegade) (since Cerberus is with the Reapers i don't think they using it for the intrest of humanity) or destroy it for good.

[Nimander]

Lumikki wrote...
This has nothing to do with punising people who choose differently. We don't even know what to choose to have positive effect. This is about that if we players do choose in the game something, those choises should mean something. The meaning doesn't have to be big, but at least little bit every choise should affect something. If choises doesn't ever mean anything, why to have choise at all.

Mean something, yes.  But not have the sort of negative consequences people keep pushing.  A choice can have interesting results and consequences without having Choice A be uber-bad, Choice B be less bad but still really bad, and Choice C be the 'correct one'.  Yet, whenever these sorts of talks come up, you hear 'The Rachni should so be lying and screw those stupid Paragons over!' or 'Leaving the base should have a mecha-human-Reaper show up to kick Shepard's butt!!!'  Basically, well, wanting to 'punish' those who didn't choose as that person did.

As an example, take the Genophage.  The Paragon choice could lead to curing it, and you have a badass krogan army supporting you.  But in the future, there can be complications with the Council, making life harder for you later on in the game.  Meanwhile, if you didn't, you have a smaller army but no complications and trouble later on.

There will be unabashedly good choices as well, of course.

Basically, ME is a 'Choose your own adventure' type story.  The varying paths will have differences, but you're not going to have one path that is the utter best choice, per se.  Or at least, I hope not.

[SpockLives]

TexasToast712 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.

I agree.

I hope the devs dont listen to the people whining about wanting ammo powers removed from skill trees.

While SOME heavy weapons suck, the Avalanche and Arc Projector are awesome.  I use a few Avalanche shots or 1 or 2 Arc projector charges on almost every mission.  I'll be disappointed if heavy weapons aren't standard fare in ME3.  Granted, most of them need a little improvement, but that's no reason to make us choose between a heavy weapon and another weapon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TexasToast712 wrote...

I hope the devs dont listen to the people whining about wanting ammo powers removed from skill trees.

The changes to ammo between ME1 and ME2 - both their inclusion in the skill trees and the addition of thermal clips - were unequivocally awful.

[FluffyScarf]

Didn't make much of a difference. Instead of holding mouse 1 down like in ME1, I just pressed mouse 4 to 'reload' every now and then before holding down M1 again.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 10 juin 2011 - 04:33 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

FluffyScarf wrote...

Didn't make much of a difference. Instead of holding mouse 1 down like in ME1, I just pressed mouse 4 to 'reload' every now and then before holding down M1 again.

It made a huge difference.  If you ran out of ammo you needed to switch weapons.

I basically used a sniper rifle for all of ME, because I enjoy sniping.  It generally offers slower-paced combat, and that's what I want.  And then ME2 comes along and won't let me snipe at everything because their isn't enough ammo capacity.

I loathed having to pull out a submachine gun.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


A player who makes in-character decisions may well choose the suboptimal path, even knowing that it's the suboptimal path.

This. In theory, the best ME2 ending might be one where everyone survives (you get to see the role that each companion plays in Mass Effect 3). But, from an in-character perspective, Shepard doesn't have access to that knowledge. You might purposely choose to kill off a companion because Shepard makes a mistake, or some other reason.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

I hope the devs dont listen to the people whining about wanting ammo powers removed from skill trees.

The changes to ammo between ME1 and ME2 - both their inclusion in the skill trees and the addition of thermal clips - were unequivocally awful.

But being able to change ammo the way you select powers is a good addition. When people say they want ammo powers, I wonder if that's what they're talking about.

[FluffyScarf]

Are you using the Widow? Or if you're on the PC, edit the 'ammo' value in the ini file so weapons function more like ME1. Just without the overheating.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

This. In theory, the best ME2 ending might be one where everyone survives (you get to see the role that each companion plays in Mass Effect 3). But, from an in-character perspective, Shepard doesn't have access to that knowledge. You might purposely choose to kill off a companion because Shepard makes a mistake, or some other reason.

Right.  I didn't do Zaeed's loyalty mission because Zaeed wouldn't talk to me, and thus gave me no reason to do his loyalty mission.

I (the player) know that doing his loyalty mission is what the game intends, and I also know that not doing it will have negative consequences.  But what I know doesn't matter.  What's important is what Shepard knows.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

But being able to change ammo the way you select powers is a good addition.

Having to spend skill points on it was stupid.

FluffyScarf wrote...

Are you using the Widow? Or if you're on the PC, edit the 'ammo' value in the ini file so weapons function more like ME1. Just without the overheating.

That's good to know.

However, I doubt I'll ever play ME2 again.  I really didn't like it.

[Daveastation]

Turran wrote...

I just don't see this complaint about heavy weapons.. I personally, when running into an unknown battle where I do not know the enemy or what is going to be around a corner, would really like the idea of bringing something that I could quickly rely on if it is a giant squid-alien man with 3000 laser eyes..

I personally find that  the arsenal of weapons (excluding heavies) is more than sufficient to easily take on everything in ME2.   So, because I don't use a heavy at all, it would makes sense that I wouldn't want it cluttering up my weapon select interface (while in combat), or my character's appearance (all the time).

I enjoy watching the videos from E3 because I don't see any heavy weapons at all on Shepard.  I rather like the appearance of the armor and prefer the option to see it rather than a large weapon I never use.

[eye basher]

No heavy weapons why in gods name would i what to waste my time fighting a preatorian in insanity with a rifle when i can just hit with the kane once or like jacob says ''hit it with the good stuff''.

[Clonedzero]

1.) Heavy weapons were largely under used. everyone i know only pulled it out a couple of times throughout the entire game. by a couple i mean literally twice. the entire game you're stuck with this big ass grenade launcher on your back for no real reason. reminded me of ME1 when you have to have all the weapons on you at all times even though you only ever used the pistol

2.) well i dont think ive seen anyone ask to be able to pick no weapons, as thats just dumb.

3.) yup, controlling the normandy wouldnt make sense. shepard isnt a pilot.

4.) you're misunderstanding peoples points here. people want the choices to be different but equal. they dont want "hey you made this choice so you get all this bonus stuff" and are concerned that bioware would "force" specific choices onto people if they want an equal amount of content.

5.) again, people arent asking for that lol. they're asking for it to go back to ME1 style where its like a PG-13 sex scene where you dont actually see anything but they're still obviously naked.

basically you're saying people want things that they dont actually want.

[Clonedzero]

also i dont understand how he thinks not carrying a heavy weapon would require alot of dev work. people have modded it out by literally changing like 1 or 2 lines of code. it'd basically them putting hitting a check box "heavy weapon yes/no".

not some crazy detailed dev work.

[wizardryforever]

Clonedzero wrote...

4.) you're misunderstanding peoples points here. people want the choices to be different but equal. they dont want "hey you made this choice so you get all this bonus stuff" and are concerned that bioware would "force" specific choices onto people if they want an equal amount of content.

Most people want that, yes.  Including myself.  But others have clamored for punishing certain choices, even to the point of making the game unwinnable if you made the wrong choice.  They essentially want to eliminate choice by making there only be one real option that has merit.  I would just like some equality in how the game plays out.  Choices can impact the story or the ending all over the place, but don't make the game more difficult (noticably anyway).  There's a whole thread in the other forum called "Punishing Paragons."  Yeah.

5.) again, people arent asking for that lol. they're asking for it to go back to ME1 style where its like a PG-13 sex scene where you dont actually see anything but they're still obviously naked.

basically you're saying people want things that they dont actually want.

I have seen people in all seriousness claim that they want full nudity, as in seeing the goods.  Again, most people want what you and I want.  But the prevalence of the complaint doesn't matter.  It is still something that people have said they want that I really don't.  That's kinda the point of this thread.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 10 juin 2011 - 06:24 .

[Travie]

God forbid a mature game would have mature sex scenes.