75 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvianus]

Shepard N7's  armor is definitely too light, even personalized.

Personally I don't understand why for example  Batarian mercenaries, had heavy armor and not us. It was presented as a forbidden fruit to make us drool.
Yes, I still don't understand why it was removed in M2. It was the main reason that caused I chose the soldier in M1.

The soldier must be better protected than others, otherwise it loses a significant advantage over other classes.

Carry more weapons than the others is certainly not an advantage so. Seriously, it's nothing. Especially when others classes  will now get also  the assault rifle. Another benefit removed.

I would be good to find the heavy armor again in Mass Effect 3 for Shepard's soldier, and personalized, yes.  And not only for Shepard, but also for all heavy classes ( vanguard )and squaddies like Ashley or Wrex, or Vega, etc.


Edit : So as some have rightly said, it is not only the soldier  who was shaken. But also more tactical class as the engineer or adept. They lost the ability to have light armor.

Especially as the most adept is lighter, it can effectively control its powers. The more he is is less cluttered, the more he is effective.

The difference in M1 made sense. There was a choice to make in relation to these classes.

We must find again light armor, medium, and heavy. Let's be frank, M2 has been dumbed down compared to the customization. M3 is expected to become better, this is something to consider.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2011 - 03:19 .

[marshalleck]

[Daiyus]

Chunkier suits would be good for true "in your face" type people. Can we get some Light Armour for more agile, tactical people too? Like in ME1:

[VegasVance]

While we are on the subject of armor, can the soldier's armor actually be armor instead of shields? Therefore making SMG's and Shotguns less threatening to a character that is meant for front line in- your-face death?

[Sylvianus]

marshalleck wrote...

@ Marsh

I think it was enough for soldier, I love how they were in M1, Very protective, but not too heavy.. But at least one armor like theses would be really cool for vanguard.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2011 - 02:52 .

[-Skorpious-]

The real question should be -

"Can we get something other than medium armor in ME3 please?"

My soldier would prefer heavy armor, while my adept would like the ability to rock light armor again.

[Sylvianus]

VegasVance wrote...

While we are on the subject of armor, can the soldier's armor actually be armor instead of shields? Therefore making SMG's and Shotguns less threatening to a character that is meant for front line in- your-face death?

I agree. At the very least, the shields should be more efficient.
Seriously I feel like the soldier will be even less interesting in M3, when I see he has nothing for him.

[mornegroth]

I'm in favor of the return of armor classes. The fact that they we're gone from ME2 was a bit of a disappointment to me (along with the fact that most of the gameplay "features" around this were - wait for it - dumbed down).

[shumworld]

I'm really against it. The ME2 concept on armors was a fun idea when customizing your Shepard. If you want a Shep in lighter armor, then customize the armor with lighter parts.

[Daiyus]

shumworld wrote...

I'm really against it. The ME2 concept on armors was a fun idea when customizing your Shepard. If you want a Shep in lighter armor, then customize the armor with lighter parts.

The point is that there aren't any Light/Heavy components in ME2.

[Jebel Krong]

the old armour 'classes' are redundant with the way the games have evolved.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 28 juin 2011 - 03:01 .

[-Skorpious-]

shumworld wrote...

I'm really against it. The ME2 concept on armors was a fun idea when customizing your Shepard. If you want a Shep in lighter armor, then customize the armor with lighter parts.

Meh, the stabilizing gauntlets (i think thats their name) was the only true light armor piece in my opinion. 

Anyways, the armor restrictions don't have to return per say, but the "look" of heavy, medium and light armors should be easily distinguishable at a quick glance. 

[Sylvianus]

-Skorpious- wrote...

The real question should be -

"Can we get something other than medium armor in ME3 please?"

My soldier would prefer heavy armor, while my adept would like the ability to rock light armor again.

Fair enough.

I'll change the title and try to add a few lines. In fact, indeed that's the difference in ability of customization that was removed in general.

We must find again light armor, medium, and heavy. Otherwise it makes no sense to have more heavy armor in the first episode in peacetime and not in war in M3.

[mornegroth]

@Jebel Krong
Games don't evolve as a whole man. There's only those who develop something that sticks and others who rashly develop their games in the same lines to attract mainstream players. Look at Halo for example, I thik Bungie was one of the first to actively give the players the option to use only two weapons at a time (a gameplay feature that wasn't prominent in games like Quake or Prey); but guess what... It made sense gameplay-wise, it felt believable for the characters and it kinda stuck. So nowadays what you have is a ****load of games that adopted that feature (even Duke Nukem) and some aren't even FPS. Look at Diablo which was (and still is) a endless source for other Action RPGs (having some companies admitting that they're developing clones).

My point is, developers must choose. Are they here to come up with something unique and original for the IPs that are their own, or should they look at other games and adapt the same techniques in the hopes of appealing the mainstream?

I don't know about you but I'm all for the former. Bioware, be original, don't forsake your own mechanics.

Modifié par mornegroth, 28 juin 2011 - 03:15 .

[Sylvianus]

shumworld wrote...

I'm really against it. The ME2 concept on armors was a fun idea when customizing your Shepard. If you want a Shep in lighter armor, then customize the armor with lighter parts.

And quality of armor ? In m2, we choose objects based on their effectiveness in relation to our class. Each object has its priorities, its effectiveness in a field, not necessarily the one intended by the player.

Why the player should sacrifice the effectiveness of his armor just to be in light armor ?

It's not fair, and in any case show only the structure of a medium armor continue to make believe that the choice is reduced.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2011 - 03:15 .

[Sylvianus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

the old armour 'classes' are redundant with the way the games have evolved.

Not at all. The structure of the armor can be completely changed too.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2011 - 03:17 .

[Ahglock]

I think you should start with a light armor base and then mods could up it to medium or heavy armor. You would have a choice more protection(medium to heavy armor type mods), more power to your omni-tool or biotic amp, balancing act between the two and other cool things. Heavy armor would be giving up pretty much all mods past protection, where as a Adept in light armor might just have mods to boost his biotics, though if he is happy with where is biotics are at he might still go for the heavy armor to improve his close combat shotgun skills etc.

[Jebel Krong]

Sylvianus wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

the old armour 'classes' are redundant with the way the games have evolved.

Not at all. The structure of the armor can be completely changed too.

as someone else said - with the modular system you can add pieces to your taste (and giving various bonuses, too) - the old system with it's rigid 3 levels and forced-upon restrictions was ultimately pointless and rightly criticised as such. you argued in the 1st post that soldiers need heavy armour - i disagree, i believe they need better skills, not a mechanical crutch.

[Raxxman]

I agree, give armour parts with negatives, and have classes like the soliders core skill reduce the negatives to 0 at full level.

QED

[Lumikki]

I don't agree.

It has to do how it affects the gameplay combat. Heavy armors are with high defensive and if defence comes too high, cover based gameplay lose all it's point. Unless the different is minimal, but i don't think that's asked here?

[Sylvianus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

the old armour 'classes' are redundant with the way the games have evolved.

Not at all. The structure of the armor can be completely changed too.

as someone else said - with the modular system you can add pieces to your taste (and giving various bonuses, too) - the old system with it's rigid 3 levels and forced-upon restrictions was ultimately pointless and rightly criticised as such. you argued in the 1st post that soldiers need heavy armour - i disagree, i believe they need better skills, not a mechanical crutch.

And I do not think it will result in M3. It seems we'll have the same powers. This makes no sense to say that the soldier is a soldier from the front, one that can survive any situation if his armor is reduced to the same extent as all others.

I am also convinced that his description was written from the ability to wear heavy armors in M1. The only class able to wear them.

A soldier is made ​​to hold the front, it must materialize this thought in concrete terms in the game. And having heavy armor is the best way to translate it. Better skills or not.

Anyway, we can bring two forms of customization. Some customizable, some not.

I rather prefer this than to see Shepard in medium armor all the time for any class. Again, the choice would be lower compared to the first episode, which is not desired.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2011 - 03:40 .

[Obro]

I still don't understand who's smart idea was to not include loot and different armor types in a RPG game.

What the hell are these people thinking??

[Sylvianus]

Lumikki wrote...

I don't agree.

It has to do how it affects the gameplay combat. Heavy armors are with high defensive and if defence comes too high, cover based gameplay lose all it's point. Unless the different is minimal, but i don't think that's asked here?

I don't know. All I ask is that a real difference is translated  in the statistics, in combat and in aesthetics. That's the rp. That's the rpg. What we are looking for before the fight and during the fight.

Normally the heavy armor is made to slow the movement but gives run more defensive fields. I do not see how covert would lose its interest just because to be better equipped or protected than the others.

In any case, I welcome any positive and negative point, which would be part of a choice assumed of armor.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 28 juin 2011 - 03:55 .

[Lumikki]

Obro wrote...

I still don't understand who's smart idea was to not include loot and different armor types in a RPG game.

What the hell are these people thinking??

RPG game?

Combat side is TPS, not RPG. Thats' the point.

So, point been be careful how much RPG customation affects combat side, because it can destroy the TPS combat side very easyly. Same what happen in ME1. While I support increase RPG customation as much as possible, I don't support it to end of destroying TPS combat.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2011 - 03:48 .

[Ahglock]

Obro wrote...

I still don't understand who's smart idea was to not include loot and different armor types in a RPG game.

What the hell are these people thinking??

I'd rather have a good loot system than no loot system, but I'd rather have no loot system over a crap system.  Recently almost all games have gone the crap route, its almost like they are making a parody of RPG loot systems and then wondering why people don;t like it.  So I am fine with a no loot system in ME, since they seem incapable of doing a good system for it.