120 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Calinstel wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

Sabotage. 

If I remember correct this talet, was worst ever invented. Why?
Because anyone who understand anything about technology, would understand that this was paradox talent.
Point been, in gameplay it works fine, but it's basicly magical power, not technical.

And that is the point I'm making with putting ammo mods in the powers. 
In gameplay it works but it's basically a HARDWARE modification, not magical. 

Little of topic, but..

You go to war and you can choose from two diffrent gun, one is normal ammo based pistol and other is some poison dart based. Now before you choose that you should know that enemy can use pills to neuralise that poisons efects, what makes basicly you gun useless agaist them. Question, which gun you choose?

Point been, only dummest soldier ever lived would bring in war gun what enemy can make useless.

Second if you have technology what is so good that it can make enemy's pistol useless, then why did you target the pistol and not the enemy it self what is a lot bigger target.

Point been, enemy would not have weapons what you can make useless and if you had technoly what could really affects all weapons, why would you use fight agaist weapons and not the enemy.  Unless you want to capture enemy alive?

Hole talent is just for gameplay fun, it has not reality other ways.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 juin 2011 - 06:53 .

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

Sabotage. 

If I remember correct this talet, was worst ever invented. Why?
Because anyone who understand anything about technology, would understand that this was paradox talent.
Point been, in gameplay it works fine, but it's basicly magical power, not technical.

Yeah, but it feels technical if you don't think about it.

[Cainne Chapel]

CannonLars wrote...

Face it. They wanted to broaden the appeal of Mass Effect for sales reasons so they streamlined it more towards a shooter market. Hence, they threw us an ammo limit, we lost weapon options, attachments, large skill trees, open exploration, and pristinely beautiful Mass Effect scenes that defined it.

Now we did still get our fantastic story and the scale we desire, but it the franchise took a very different turn and it took a large injection of shooter making it more like 50/50 RPGshooter instead of 80/20 RPG shooter.

I loved bigger skill trees and all the cool ammo types and armor attachments. It is a shame they took it away. Heck, even the little elevator dialogues added good RPG element to me.

outside of some minor things that became powers like ammo...what weapon options did we lose? I'd say ME2 had greater weapon variety than ME1 did and would say just from the E3 footage ME3 looks like it'll have even more....So I dont see a loss there.

Open exploration? I must of missed that in ME1...unless a giant square mostly featureless box is exploration.... and there were still tons of beautiful ME scenes on the N7 planets if you looked for em... heck i'd say just as many if not more than on the UNC worlds in ME1.

Skills trees has been talked about, yeah we dont have as MANY skills, but most have been either wrapped up into another skill or condensed

Ammo Limit, overheating mechanic...well both are arbitrary limits on ammo, but for the game I think the heatsinks worked just as well.

They streamlined the game yes, but i actually prefer the quicker pace of ME2 to that of ME1.... and I LOVE Me 1.

[Someone With Mass]

CannonLars wrote...

Face it. They wanted to broaden the appeal of Mass Effect for sales reasons so they streamlined it more towards a shooter market. Hence, they threw us an ammo limit, we lost weapon options, attachments, large skill trees, open exploration, and pristinely beautiful Mass Effect scenes that defined it.

Now we did still get our fantastic story and the scale we desire, but it the franchise took a very different turn and it took a large injection of shooter making it more like 50/50 RPGshooter instead of 80/20 RPG shooter.

I loved bigger skill trees and all the cool ammo types and armor attachments. It is a shame they took it away. Heck, even the little elevator dialogues added good RPG element to me.

Tell me you aren't serious, because ME1's power tree allowed for barely any customization at all. 

And that last comment just shows you haven't heard that there will be weapon customization in ME3, and it's looking a lot better than the generic weapon mods in ME1. Same with the armor.

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...
Second if you have technology what is so good that it can make enemy's pistol useless, then why did you target the pistol and not the enemy it self what is a lot bigger target. 

Point been, enemy would not have weapons what you can make useless and if you had technoly what could really affects all weapons, why would you use fight agaist weapons and not the enemy.  Unless you want to capture enemy alive?

Well, something like an EMP effect could be harmless to living creatures. But you could target someone's armor suit and wipe out most of his defense, sure.

How the equipment actually gets better is another matter. But if it didn't we'd end up clubbing each other with rifle butts.

[CannonO]

Geez, guys. I haven't been on the forums in a while so I didn't think I came off as a significant dead-horse-beater, but sorry if I actually did.

First off, I liked the elevator dialogue and loading because it was just a fun Mass Effect only thing that felt nice compared to the average load screen. It is minor, but I am allowed to like it.

Now as for losing options from ME1 to ME2, I am not wrong on this. There were a small selection of weapons in each category, but a rather large collection in ME1. My favorite thing was to get the Spectre set and actually have matching weapons (minor, I know) and then look through the loads of tiered attachments and decide which ammo type to use and which augmentation to add. That is gone in ME2. You choose a single, very basic ammo type and one of just a few limited weapons that you must keep in your inventory for the whole game since there are so few. I preferred the bigger points system, so yes ME1 had a bigger skill tree.

Inventory was a big deal and was something we wanted improvement on, not removal of. I still miss having a manageable inventory. It felt like me, space, and a whole lot of new space culture items that I got a bright look at.
Same goes for planet exploration. We wanted improvements, not removal. A new vehicle and some variety, but still a true open area. I don't care if you call it lame, I know it was not perfect, but N7 missions are closed in and smaller. They are something I hope stays too, but they are absolutely not a replacement for driving under a beautiful planet looming in the sky, getting out and standing on a plateau, and staring across the horizon of the beautiful space barren and lens flare of a foreign sun.

I am surprised people are so willing to simplify features of ME1 in their arguments just to defend ME2. Both are fantastic, but ME1 had some pristine beauty that was replaced with action flare for the ME2. I love them both and just want a shot of ME1 back in my ME3.

[Lumikki]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Second if you have technology what is so good that it can make enemy's pistol useless, then why did you target the pistol and not the enemy it self what is a lot bigger target. 

Point been, enemy would not have weapons what you can make useless and if you had technoly what could really affects all weapons, why would you use fight agaist weapons and not the enemy.  Unless you want to capture enemy alive?

Well, something like an EMP effect could be harmless to living creatures. But you could target someone's armor suit and wipe out most of his defense, sure.

How the equipment actually gets better is another matter. But if it didn't we'd end up clubbing each other with rifle butts.

I skip the argument and try to make it back to topic.

I play mostly infiltrator in ME serie what is also half technical soldier. I would not like anyting more than have more technology based toys what I could use in combat. But I would like also that they make someway sense to me.

[LemurFromTheId]

CannonLars wrote...

Now as for losing options from ME1 to ME2, I am not wrong on this. There were a small selection of weapons in each category, but a rather large collection in ME1. My favorite thing was to get the Spectre set and actually have matching weapons (minor, I know) and then look through the loads of tiered attachments and decide which ammo type to use and which augmentation to add. That is gone in ME2. You choose a single, very basic ammo type and one of just a few limited weapons that you must keep in your inventory for the whole game since there are so few. I preferred the bigger points system, so yes ME1 had a bigger skill tree.

In ME1, every assault rifle (aside from the pulse rifle, perhaps) handled exactly the same way, they only had minor but steadily increasing stat differences. In ME2, every assault rifle handles differently, and optimally they should be used in a different manner. Vindicator and Revenant really are fundamentally different weapons that both allow and require different tactics.

In ME1, you always picked the best weapon available. In ME2, there isn't a best weapon, there are only different weapons. ME2 had much more variety in weapons, even if there weren't as many cosmetically different weapons. And I believe we can customize weapon colors in ME3?

Everyone in the audience who didn't prefer Spectre Master Gear, please stand up!

CannonLars wrote...

Inventory was a big deal and was something we wanted improvement on, not removal of. I still miss having a manageable inventory. It felt like me, space, and a whole lot of new space culture items that I got a bright look at.

I don't miss it in the least. During the last third of the game, I always had 9999999 credits, 999 omni-gel and no way of simply ignoring all the useless stuff the game threw at me.

Of course, that doesn't mean that inventory cannot be implemented properly. But it should only be there if it serves a purpose, and if were're serious about roleplaying, there is very little purpose. No professional soldier would carry a gram more than necessary when going into battle, and most definitely would not stop to pick up every assault rifle from every fallen soldier. That's just ridiculous, and definitely out of character.

I think ME2 did it right: you prepare for the mission before the mission, you concentrate on the mission during the mission. If you find cool tech, just scan it and re-create it back in Normandy. You don't need an inventory for that.

CannonLars wrote...

Same goes for planet exploration. We wanted improvements, not removal. A new vehicle and some variety, but still a true open area. I don't care if you call it lame, I know it was not perfect, but N7 missions are closed in and smaller. They are something I hope stays too, but they are absolutely not a replacement for driving under a beautiful planet looming in the sky, getting out and standing on a plateau, and staring across the horizon of the beautiful space barren and lens flare of a foreign sun.

Here's something I partially agree with. There should have been more open areas and more non-linear missions (were there any?) in ME2. But let's face it: the fascination of driving aroung with the Mako died quickly during/after the first playthrough, and the planet design was often just awful in ME1. Interesting stuff was frequently placed in the absolutely most unreachable spot in the area. I'd really, really like to know what the designers were thinking. "It's so much fun trying to get here! Let alone trying to get out!"

CannonLars wrote...

I am surprised people are so willing to simplify features of ME1 in their arguments just to defend ME2. Both are fantastic, but ME1 had some pristine beauty that was replaced with action flare for the ME2. I love them both and just want a shot of ME1 back in my ME3.

On the other hand, I think ME2 is much deeper than many people give it credit for - or even realize. They just look at the numbers and say that ME1 had more skills, more levels, more options. They also think that because ME2 is more shooter than ME1, it's less RPG. These things are orthogonal, not complementary. Just like the action flare you mentioned: it didn't replace anything, it was simply added to ME2's own pristine beauty, which is different from ME1's.

Just to be clear: I love ME1. I still play it - I finished my latest playthrough last week. ME2 just improved in pretty much all areas except writing.

[CannonO]

Aedolon wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

Now as for losing options from ME1 to ME2, I am not wrong on this. There were a small selection of weapons in each category, but a rather large collection in ME1. My favorite thing was to get the Spectre set and actually have matching weapons (minor, I know) and then look through the loads of tiered attachments and decide which ammo type to use and which augmentation to add. That is gone in ME2. You choose a single, very basic ammo type and one of just a few limited weapons that you must keep in your inventory for the whole game since there are so few. I preferred the bigger points system, so yes ME1 had a bigger skill tree.

In ME1, every assault rifle (aside from the pulse rifle, perhaps) handled exactly the same way, they only had minor but steadily increasing stat differences. In ME2, every assault rifle handles differently, and optimally they should be used in a different manner. Vindicator and Revenant really are fundamentally different weapons that both allow and require different tactics.

In ME1, you always picked the best weapon available. In ME2, there isn't a best weapon, there are only different weapons. ME2 had much more variety in weapons, even if there weren't as many cosmetically different weapons. And I believe we can customize weapon colors in ME3?

Everyone in the audience who didn't prefer Spectre Master Gear, please stand up!

CannonLars wrote...

Inventory was a big deal and was something we wanted improvement on, not removal of. I still miss having a manageable inventory. It felt like me, space, and a whole lot of new space culture items that I got a bright look at.

I don't miss it in the least. During the last third of the game, I always had 9999999 credits, 999 omni-gel and no way of simply ignoring all the useless stuff the game threw at me.

Of course, that doesn't mean that inventory cannot be implemented properly. But it should only be there if it serves a purpose, and if were're serious about roleplaying, there is very little purpose. No professional soldier would carry a gram more than necessary when going into battle, and most definitely would not stop to pick up every assault rifle from every fallen soldier. That's just ridiculous, and definitely out of character.

I think ME2 did it right: you prepare for the mission before the mission, you concentrate on the mission during the mission. If you find cool tech, just scan it and re-create it back in Normandy. You don't need an inventory for that.

CannonLars wrote...

Same goes for planet exploration. We wanted improvements, not removal. A new vehicle and some variety, but still a true open area. I don't care if you call it lame, I know it was not perfect, but N7 missions are closed in and smaller. They are something I hope stays too, but they are absolutely not a replacement for driving under a beautiful planet looming in the sky, getting out and standing on a plateau, and staring across the horizon of the beautiful space barren and lens flare of a foreign sun.

Here's something I partially agree with. There should have been more open areas and more non-linear missions (were there any?) in ME2. But let's face it: the fascination of driving aroung with the Mako died quickly during/after the first playthrough, and the planet design was often just awful in ME1. Interesting stuff was frequently placed in the absolutely most unreachable spot in the area. I'd really, really like to know what the designers were thinking. "It's so much fun trying to get here! Let alone trying to get out!"

CannonLars wrote...

I am surprised people are so willing to simplify features of ME1 in their arguments just to defend ME2. Both are fantastic, but ME1 had some pristine beauty that was replaced with action flare for the ME2. I love them both and just want a shot of ME1 back in my ME3.

On the other hand, I think ME2 is much deeper than many people give it credit for - or even realize. They just look at the numbers and say that ME1 had more skills, more levels, more options. They also think that because ME2 is more shooter than ME1, it's less RPG. These things are orthogonal, not complementary. Just like the action flare you mentioned: it didn't replace anything, it was simply added to ME2's own pristine beauty, which is different from ME1's.

Just to be clear: I love ME1. I still play it - I finished my latest playthrough last week. ME2 just improved in pretty much all areas except writing.

Apologies for the mega quote.

Anyways, you don't need to mention that you don't miss inventory because of your 999 omni gel. You seemed to try and counter my wish for improved inventory, but your follow-up sentence about the fact that it could be implemented properly means my point was reasonable to begin with. Improved inventory is what we want, not shooter-style small selection instead of an inventory altogether. I don't know who said anything about ME1's inventory being missed, just an inventory in general. And let's not get into how unrealistic inventories can be, we all know what situations a soldier might not need a game inventory for. 

Now with planet exploration, I think you counter my point pointlessly again. An improved version of ME1's concept could be great and certainly welcomed compared to complete absence of open areas. I think you see that, so I think you really don't need to rehash that things need improvement  because it starts to sound like you think we might as well drop it like they did for ME2.

I think we all know that ME2 could still have been more shooter and just as much RPG, but we know it wasn't. It streamlined in the shooter direction. We definitely lost some RPG things. And I liked ME1's plethora of guns, regardless of if there were drastic jumps between them. This again leads to me saying, we want it improved, not removed.

[Icinix]

Its hard to nut down exactly what the difference in skill / stat based RPG elements was between ME1 and ME2, but personally I think the major difference between the two for me was that in ME1 you could end up with a character whose primary focus was diplomacy, healing and hacking - or you could end up with a superpowerful tanking bullet spewing machine. Or you could sit somewhere in between - or it could be totally different all together. (Yes, I'm aware the differences in upgrading skills may not be massive, but it is present.)

In ME2 - by end game everyone pretty much has the same skill set. The only difference is the path taken to get there.

ME3 looks BETTER than ME1 (and in turn ME2) in the sense that every players character is going to end up slightly different according to how they want to play. The constant evolution of powers / skills etc to cause variations as you go just looks deliciously tasty. Now - if only we can order Tali or Legion to do the hacking mini - games......

[CannonO]

Icinix wrote...

Its hard to nut down exactly what the difference in skill / stat based RPG elements was between ME1 and ME2, but personally I think the major difference between the two for me was that in ME1 you could end up with a character whose primary focus was diplomacy, healing and hacking - or you could end up with a superpowerful tanking bullet spewing machine. Or you could sit somewhere in between - or it could be totally different all together. (Yes, I'm aware the differences in upgrading skills may not be massive, but it is present.)

In ME2 - by end game everyone pretty much has the same skill set. The only difference is the path taken to get there.

ME3 looks BETTER than ME1 (and in turn ME2) in the sense that every players character is going to end up slightly different according to how they want to play. The constant evolution of powers / skills etc to cause variations as you go just looks deliciously tasty. Now - if only we can order Tali or Legion to do the hacking mini - games......

Yes, it seemed small and strict in ME2 about where your skills really take you. It was basically set so everyone had one move that others my have skipped, but otherwise the points pushed you towards similar combat skill upgrades without room for persuasion and electronics and more that just had more presence in ME1.

[Cainne Chapel]

CannonLars wrote...

Apologies for the mega quote.

Anyways, you don't need to mention that you don't miss inventory because of your 999 omni gel. You seemed to try and counter my wish for improved inventory, but your follow-up sentence about the fact that it could be implemented properly means my point was reasonable to begin with. Improved inventory is what we want, not shooter-style small selection instead of an inventory altogether. I don't know who said anything about ME1's inventory being missed, just an inventory in general. And let's not get into how unrealistic inventories can be, we all know what situations a soldier might not need a game inventory for. 

Now with planet exploration, I think you counter my point pointlessly again. An improved version of ME1's concept could be great and certainly welcomed compared to complete absence of open areas. I think you see that, so I think you really don't need to rehash that things need improvement  because it starts to sound like you think we might as well drop it like they did for ME2.

I think we all know that ME2 could still have been more shooter and just as much RPG, but we know it wasn't. It streamlined in the shooter direction. We definitely lost some RPG things. And I liked ME1's plethora of guns, regardless of if there were drastic jumps between them. This again leads to me saying, we want it improved, not removed.

I Think the point he was trying to make Lars, is that in the univese as a whole, an inventory doesn't quite fit the game/genre, which IS a valid point, as I really only see the need for an inventory is if we have a multitude of loot to sell, etc, which once again, doesnt quite fit the ME universe.   Now if we had a bunch of things like potions, grenades, etc that we'd need to carry that were situational...then sure we could use one.

Planet exploration, if done right, would be nice, I see the appeal to ME1's style and also the tight story focused (mostly) ME 2 style as well...and dont see why we cant have both in one, but I for one do not miss trolling around in a barren wasteland like ME1, if they can improve it and give it meaningul things (Like OVerlord per say) then it'd be a perfect balance of exploration + tight missions

as for RPG elements, again, it'lll change depending onw ho you're talking to what constitutes as RPG elements to them personally, but I really didn't Miss the guns from ME1, sure there were a BUNCH of em... but they were basically just reskins, fired the same, looked the same, etc.  There's really not much room for "RPG expansion" there, if everything is essentially the same.  Now if each one those guns had a different gameplay mechanic, then sure i'd be mad we went from however mean guns down to 18-20 guns, but we didn't.  All the guns basically fired like every other one in its class, save for weapon or two, thats hardly weapon diversity if you ask me.

What ME3 is doing, which looks to be the right direction, is taking all the different guns from ME2 and adding more personal customization to them, thus off the bat we'll have dozens of more options than either ME2 or ME1 combined by the sheer virtue than we can custom tune each weapon AND each weapon is fundamentally different.

So we get the best of both worlds rather than just "new" skins.

[nhsk]

Aedolon wrote...

nhsk wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

@OP

"I think the reduction in character development in ME2 compared to ME1 was my greatest disappointment. "

In ME1, there was no evolution at all for the last level of the Abilities, where as in ME2, there were two different evolution paths per ability. Are you referring to something else in terms of character development?

Which also was its weak point.

Example, a squadmate like Jacob, was really useless in combat as squadmates had 4 powers but only enough points at max level to fill 3 powers leaving the last completely blank, forcing you to cut out his trademark power if you wanted to fill up the rest of the bars as unlocking the loyalty power would automatically place a point there, thus if you tried to fill up the other 3 powers would have excess points you couldn't use as each step got more expensive.

Same applies for Garrus, I have yet to put a point in his Overload.

Mordin, never filled his Cryoblast

Miranda, had a very nice character specific tree, but was never filled, as it would prevent me from filling the other 3 powers.

Jack, forcing a point into shockwave? Seriously...

I could probably go on but....

I think the problem with ME2 powers is that ranks 2 and 3 offer very little improvement, so it's often best to spend either 1 or 10 points to any given power. I just hope they make power progression more linear in ME3.

As for the squad mates:

Garrus has the best overload of all squad mates. You should try it.

Mordin's rank 4 cryo blast has the shortest cooldown of all squad mate powers: 4.5 seconds, same as Shepard's. Extremely useful, even on Insanity.

As for Miranda, I agree, but only because her other three powers are way too useful, making her pretty much overpowered compared to other squad mates. She should be toned down.

Shockwave is definitely underwhelming, but I think it takes a bit too much flak. It's situational, but it has it's uses, and it's in fact much more useful on Jack than on an adept.

What I meant, rank 2 or 3 of a power is really underwhelming comparing to evolving it into the fourth tier.

[LemurFromTheId]

CannonLars wrote...

Apologies for the mega quote.

Anyways, you don't need to mention that you don't miss inventory because of your 999 omni gel.

You're right, that was unnecessary.

CannonLars wrote...

You seemed to try and counter my wish for improved inventory, but your follow-up sentence about the fact that it could be implemented properly means my point was reasonable to begin with. Improved inventory is what we want, not shooter-style small selection instead of an inventory altogether. I don't know who said anything about ME1's inventory being missed, just an inventory in general. And let's not get into how unrealistic inventories can be, we all know what situations a soldier might not need a game inventory for.

Yes, your point was reasonable, I don't disagree with that. I just think an inventory is unnecessary in this particular kind of RPG, and if it's unnecessary, it shouldn't be there at all.

This is how ME3's equipment management might work:
- You choose your weapons when leaving Normandy.
- You can also change your armor when leaving Normandy.
- You can change weapons through the hud/wheel.
- You can mod weapons using the mod interface. Any mods you pick up appear there.
- If you find a new weapon, you either scan it or replace your current weapon with it. You don't have a backpack, you don't carry extra weapons with you.
- You don't change armor in the battlefield.
- You don't buy armor pieces, you buy specs/licenses and manufacture them yourself aboard Normandy.
- When you find new armor tech during a mission, you scan it. It wouldn't fit you anyway.
- Medi-gel, grenades etc. you simply pick up when not over capacity.
- Normandy has vast stocks of medi-gel and grenades.
- Special Quest Items don't need any management.

I think this is realistic, it fits the universe perfectly and simply works much better than any inventory. Of course, I'm one of the few people who don't equal role-playing games with loot.

CannonLars wrote...

Now with planet exploration, I think you counter my point pointlessly again. An improved version of ME1's concept could be great and certainly welcomed compared to complete absence of open areas. I think you see that, so I think you really don't need to rehash that things need improvement because it starts to sound like you think we might as well drop it like they did for ME2.

I think I kind of expressed that more open areas would be cool. Hammerhead has potential, but the gameplay had some huge problems.

But if we think about the storyline, in ME1 the exploration actually made some sense. You weren't in an absolute hurry at first, and you were looking for traces of Saren and the geth.

In ME3, Earth is being scorched by the reapers. You will not be driving around in the Mako, admiring foreign sunsets and brilliant lens flares, exploring strange new worlds.

CannonLars wrote...

I think we all know that ME2 could still have been more shooter and just as much RPG, but we know it wasn't. It streamlined in the shooter direction. We definitely lost some RPG things. And I liked ME1's plethora of guns, regardless of if there were drastic jumps between them. This again leads to me saying, we want it improved, not removed.

...And here we truly disagree. ME2 was streamlined, but it didn't take anything away from the RPG.

These are my opinions: ME2 has less skills per class, but they are more varied, and they do more. ME2 has less guns, but they are more varied, and they do more. ME2 has more squad members and they have much more personality. ME1 has three main classes and three mixed classes, ME2 has six distinct classes. Different builds within the same class in ME2 are more distinct than in ME1. ME2's global cooldown means that you don't just spam your powers when they become available, you choose which power to use according to situation. ME2 is more tactical and has more ways to play the game. ME2's lack of inventory actually made it much more realistic and believable. And so on.

One can make arguments for both sides, but I definitely don't "know" we lost any RPG elements. It isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Not mine.

[LemurFromTheId]

nhsk wrote...

What I meant, rank 2 or 3 of a power is really underwhelming comparing to evolving it into the fourth tier.

Great, we agree!

[AlanC9]

Aedolon wrote...

This is how ME3's equipment management might work:
- You choose your weapons when leaving Normandy.
- You can also change your armor when leaving Normandy.
- You can change weapons through the hud/wheel.
- You can mod weapons using the mod interface. Any mods you pick up appear there.
- If you find a new weapon, you either scan it or replace your current weapon with it. You don't have a backpack, you don't carry extra weapons with you.
- You don't change armor in the battlefield.
- You don't buy armor pieces, you buy specs/licenses and manufacture them yourself aboard Normandy.
- When you find new armor tech during a mission, you scan it. It wouldn't fit you anyway.
- Medi-gel, grenades etc. you simply pick up when not over capacity.
- Normandy has vast stocks of medi-gel and grenades.
- Special Quest Items don't need any management.

I think this is realistic, it fits the universe perfectly and simply works much better than any inventory. Of course, I'm one of the few people who don't equal role-playing games with loot.

Itals mine. If we're talking realism, Shepard shouldn't be buying anything. Unless in ME3 he somehow doesn't have access to Alliance resources anymore, but that's hard to believe.

I'd also add that the weapon power curve should be a lot flatter even than ME2's (ME1's is obviously idiotic). Milspec weapons shouldn't be that different when the tech levels are the same. Hell, keeping weapon progression at all is a triumph of traditional RPG design over sense

Other than that, a very good proposal.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 juin 2011 - 11:12 .

[LemurFromTheId]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I Think the point he was trying to make Lars, is that in the univese as a whole, an inventory doesn't quite fit the game/genre, which IS a valid point, as I really only see the need for an inventory is if we have a multitude of loot to sell, etc, which once again, doesnt quite fit the ME universe. Now if we had a bunch of things like potions, grenades, etc that we'd need to carry that were situational...then sure we could use one.

Thanks, that's precisely one of the things I tried to express.

It'd be hard to imagine a classic fantasy RPG without an inventory. Potions, herbs, gems, magical items etc. play a huge part in these games.

Mass Effect, however, is an immaterial universe in a sense. Money is virtual, tech can be manufactured when needed. You don't carry keys, you hack with omni-tool/omni-gel. Weapons are compact and fold away when not needed. It's not a story about a farm boy who grows up to become a hero. These games are above that. Shepard doesn't do FedEx quests.

[Morroian]

Aedolon wrote...

These games are above that. Shepard doesn't do FedEx quests.

No he/she does planet scanning instead. And anyway I reckon Ish's quest in ME2 qualifies as a fetch quest.

[Morroian]

Aedolon wrote...

...And here we truly disagree. ME2 was streamlined, but it didn't take anything away from the RPG.

These are my opinions: ME2 has less skills per class, but they are more varied, and they do more.

Because they added ammo powers, the fact is the tree allows for less customisation than ME1 and is shallower. Hell a game like Borderlands has more customisation.

[CannonO]

Aedolon wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

Apologies for the mega quote.

Anyways, you don't need to mention that you don't miss inventory because of your 999 omni gel.

You're right, that was unnecessary.

CannonLars wrote...

 /snip ME1's inventory being missed, just an inventory in general. And let's not get into how unrealistic inventories can be, we all know what situations a soldier might not need a game inventory for.

Yes, your point was reasonable, I don't disagree with that. I just think an inventory is unnecessary in this particular kind of RPG, and if it's unnecessary, it shouldn't be there at all.

This is how ME3's equipment management might work:
- You choose your weapons when leaving Normandy.
- You can also change your armor when leaving Normandy.
- You can change weapons through the hud/wheel.
- You can mod weapons using the mod interface. Any mods you pick up appear there.
- If you find a new weapon, you either scan it or replace your current weapon with it. You don't have a backpack, you don't carry extra weapons with you.
- You don't change armor in the battlefield.
- You don't buy armor pieces, you buy specs/licenses and manufacture them yourself aboard Normandy.
- When you find new armor tech during a mission, you scan it. It wouldn't fit you anyway.
- Medi-gel, grenades etc. you simply pick up when not over capacity.
- Normandy has vast stocks of medi-gel and grenades.
- Special Quest Items don't need any management.

I think this is realistic, it fits the universe perfectly and simply works much better than any inventory. Of course, I'm one of the few people who don't equal role-playing games with loot.

CannonLars wrote...

/snip  that things need improvement because it starts to sound like you think we might as well drop it like they did for ME2.

I think I kind of expressed that more open areas would be cool. Hammerhead has potential, but the gameplay had some huge problems.

But if we think about the storyline, in ME1 the exploration actually made some sense. You weren't in an absolute hurry at first, and you were looking for traces of Saren and the geth.

In ME3, Earth is being scorched by the reapers. You will not be driving around in the Mako, admiring foreign sunsets and brilliant lens flares, exploring strange new worlds.

CannonLars wrote...

I think we all know that ME2 could still have been more shooter and just as much RPG, but we know it wasn't. It streamlined in the shooter direction. We definitely lost some RPG things. And I liked ME1's plethora of guns, regardless of if there were drastic jumps between them. This again leads to me saying, we want it improved, not removed.

...And here we truly disagree. ME2 was streamlined, but it didn't take anything away from the RPG.

These are my opinions: ME2 has less skills per class, but they are more varied, and they do more. ME2 has less guns, but they are more varied, and they do more. ME2 has more squad members and they have much more personality. ME1 has three main classes and three mixed classes, ME2 has six distinct classes. Different builds within the same class in ME2 are more distinct than in ME1. ME2's global cooldown means that you don't just spam your powers when they become available, you choose which power to use according to situation. ME2 is more tactical and has more ways to play the game. ME2's lack of inventory actually made it much more realistic and believable. And so on.

One can make arguments for both sides, but I definitely don't "know" we lost any RPG elements. It isn't a fact, it's an opinion. Not mine.

I like your constructiveness here. That is my favorite kind of post, when someone lays out a system for other to read.

Anyways


A lot of the downtime allowed in the ME universe doesn't fit the plot. We were in a rush to stop Saren and the Collectors. Neither one should have allowed for so much downtime if they were so adamant on preserving the plot. I think the fact is that for them to allow exploartion at all that is gonna give players a tool for downtime. No matter how urgent things are, I don't want a linear rush where I can't visit every shop and npc.

Shepard is always on an urgent mission, but this game established exploration from day one, so it needs to stay and if it can bring back a better version of the day one product's exploration, which people shouldn't forget was part of the package that made this series a hit, then I hope they do bring it back.

Lastly, as for loss of RPG. I think when they limited how many options we had, thus limiting the final character variations, they limited how much of an RPG it is. Just because a pistol and a sniper are very different, doesn't mean I feel satisfied with the small amount of options those will grant me. I want ten pistols that look different and have different stats to make my final character go further in the direction I want. A small handful of weapons isn't near RPG level to me. ME1 was closer.

Modifié par CannonLars, 20 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[The Spamming Troll]

AlanC9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

Sabotage. 

If I remember correct this talet, was worst ever invented. Why?
Because anyone who understand anything about technology, would understand that this was paradox talent.
Point been, in gameplay it works fine, but it's basicly magical power, not technical.

Yeah, but it feels technical if you don't think about it.

this is my favorite post i have ever seen.
thank you alan.

[CannonO]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

Apologies for the mega quote.

Anyways, you don't need to mention that you don't miss inventory because of your 999 omni gel. You seemed to try and counter my wish for improved inventory, but your follow-up sentence about the fact that it could be implemented properly means my point was reasonable to begin with. Improved inventory is what we want, not shooter-style small selection instead of an inventory altogether. I don't know who said anything about ME1's inventory being missed, just an inventory in general. And let's not get into how unrealistic inventories can be, we all know what situations a soldier might not need a game inventory for. 

Now with planet exploration, I think you counter my point pointlessly again. An improved version of ME1's concept could be great and certainly welcomed compared to complete absence of open areas. I think you see that, so I think you really don't need to rehash that things need improvement  because it starts to sound like you think we might as well drop it like they did for ME2.

I think we all know that ME2 could still have been more shooter and just as much RPG, but we know it wasn't. It streamlined in the shooter direction. We definitely lost some RPG things. And I liked ME1's plethora of guns, regardless of if there were drastic jumps between them. This again leads to me saying, we want it improved, not removed.

I Think the point he was trying to make Lars, is that in the univese as a whole, an inventory doesn't quite fit the game/genre, which IS a valid point, as I really only see the need for an inventory is if we have a multitude of loot to sell, etc, which once again, doesnt quite fit the ME universe.   Now if we had a bunch of things like potions, grenades, etc that we'd need to carry that were situational...then sure we could use one.

Planet exploration, if done right, would be nice, I see the appeal to ME1's style and also the tight story focused (mostly) ME 2 style as well...and dont see why we cant have both in one, but I for one do not miss trolling around in a barren wasteland like ME1, if they can improve it and give it meaningul things (Like OVerlord per say) then it'd be a perfect balance of exploration + tight missions

as for RPG elements, again, it'lll change depending onw ho you're talking to what constitutes as RPG elements to them personally, but I really didn't Miss the guns from ME1, sure there were a BUNCH of em... but they were basically just reskins, fired the same, looked the same, etc.  There's really not much room for "RPG expansion" there, if everything is essentially the same.  Now if each one those guns had a different gameplay mechanic, then sure i'd be mad we went from however mean guns down to 18-20 guns, but we didn't.  All the guns basically fired like every other one in its class, save for weapon or two, thats hardly weapon diversity if you ask me.

What ME3 is doing, which looks to be the right direction, is taking all the different guns from ME2 and adding more personal customization to them, thus off the bat we'll have dozens of more options than either ME2 or ME1 combined by the sheer virtue than we can custom tune each weapon AND each weapon is fundamentally different.

So we get the best of both worlds rather than just "new" skins.

Uh, they put inventory in the vision from the start of the series. It absolutely fit when they promoted it as an RPG with shooter elements. There were many options that I enjoyed using before reaching the end of a playthrough. Multiple grenade types, different armors, interesting pistols and shotguns. It was all adding to the variety of characters that players could create. So many different stats, augmentations, looks, and approaches. It was a lot and an inventory fit. They just needed to do a better one.

ME3 sounds like a nice step, but I don't see how inventory wouldn't fit if done right since it fit in the vision of the series as they imagined it.

[LemurFromTheId]

AlanC9 wrote...

Itals mine. If we're talking realism, Shepard shouldn't be buying anything. Unless in ME3 he somehow doesn't have access to Alliance resources anymore, but that's hard to believe.

I'd also add that the weapon power curve should be a lot flatter even than ME2's (ME1's is obviously idiotic). Milspec weapons shouldn't be that different when the tech levels are the same. Hell, keeping weapon progression at all is a triumph of traditional RPG design over sense

Other than that, a very good proposal.

You know, one of the things that really irritated me about The Witcher 2 was precisely the weapon power curve. It was silly. An exceptional steel sword doesn't do three times the damage of a stock quality steel sword.

I really like this about ME2: Avenger and Mantis are pretty much the only weapons in the game that are clearly worse than some other weapons - yet even they do the job well enough. Every weapon in the game is useful and needed, and that's brilliant!

[sympathy4saren]

I've been very vocal about my opinion on rpg elements, in particular skill trees, statistics and detailed modification/inventory.

At this point, I'm very optimistic by what I've seen. Of course, like everybody, I'm excited to see more, but I'm very happy with the progress I am seeing. Still plenty of time to add even more detail. Sofar, the interface looks efficient and the skills are definitely more extensive and seems to permit more customization in displacement of skill points.

Really encouraged, and I've been a very big critic. Hopeful to soon get word on exploration on exoplanets and non-mission planets. Those vistas need to be explored a tad

Good job, BioWare. Keep it up!