3223 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...


I agree - ME2 didn't offer enough variety

Without DLC, you mean? (I'm still hoping for a GOTY edition.)

No one says novel things, like ME3 should allow you to kill reapers and their explore and loot their shattered remains for tech + lore.

I'd like that, but I'm not sure I'd want to see it more than once in the game.

[littlezack]

There were a lot of things I liked about Mass Effect 1, but loot was never one of them. In fact, loot was a major drawback for me. The problem is, the more you play Mass Effect 1, the more loot turns away from being a reward to a nuisance. The first time around, I enjoyed tweaking stats, though I would have preferred if weapons and armor had more different looks than just palette swaps. But once you know what to expect from each level and situation, it just becomes clockwork. I modify in the way that I need to, and there's no real guesswork involved.

And once you've gotten the best stuff, and you reach the item limit, it just becomes a straight chore. I remember taking a good five minute in the middle of Noveria just to clean out the inventory. You want to talk about 'immersion-breaking'? That was immersion breaking.

[Someone With Mass]

I would gladly give up the inventory system if it means that I don't have to sort out the junk after every fight and spend more time in the menus than actually playing the game. Have never understood the obsession about it, either. It's just tedious and drags the flow of the game down. Probably why ME1 felt like it was a lot longer than ME2, when it's actually shorter. Because I spend the majority of that time flipping through menus until I find the best stuff in the game.

ME2 had loot too. It just kept the interaction with the loot to a minimum and sorted it all out for me.

Not to mention that the guns had their own identity and could be picked based on preference instead of stats. I'd gladly give up the inventory if it means that I can spend more time with actually playing the game.

There's nothing complex nor anything important about the inventory in ME1.

I'd rather spend more time with the characters.

[javierabegazo]

I recently played the demo for Dungeoun Seige III on Xbox Live.

After EVERY fight encounter, I get atleast 2 new weapons. This is totally pointless, and not fun, and feels more like a chore, and gives me far less attachment to my weapons.

[javierabegazo]

One more thing to think about, having a system of traditional Loot, and stat based weapons would make acquiring weapons far more linear, because 50% of the time, after getting new items, your old items are simply inferior.

ME2's weapons functioned differently, and while some more minutely different than others in terms of DPS, they still were valid to use throughout the entire game.

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

Issue is, is more loot better for game or not?

Personally, I don't know if more loot is better or not.  I do know that more options is better for a game.

It is generally true that the weapons and armor in ME 1 were pretty much a linear upgrade, with just a few exceptions. However, being able to mod them made for a  much more interesting experience.  That's what I really missed about ME2.  WIth the right options to trick a weapon out, you can turn a choice of three assault rifles into thirty.  Or more.

This is what makes me excited about ME 3's "loot" system.  Gone seems to be the days of ME 1 where it rained loot, you had to pick it up, and most of it was useless.  Gone are the days of ME2 with very few options and boring linear upgrades.  The initial look has it seem like the days of KOTOR are returning.  Get a weapon, add/change a few things around.  Now it's not just an assault rifle, now it's Shepard's assault rifle.

[javierabegazo]

Things that are always good for players in my book.
1. Options
2. Emotional or otherwise attachment to equipment, i.e. Ownership

However having to have a player examine 300+ items in any given playthrough isn't so much fun, atleast for most gamers. It's fun to pick up a new item, and experience the difference, tangibly, than to simply give them the comfort of +256 DMG vs +232 DMG

[RyuGuitarFreak]

javierabegazo wrote...

I recently played the demo for Dungeoun Seige III on Xbox Live.

After EVERY fight encounter, I get atleast 2 new weapons. This is totally pointless, and not fun, and feels more like a chore, and gives me far less attachment to my weapons.

I totally agree with that. One thing I hated in Borderlands/Diablo/dungeon crawler games is that. One thing I prefer much more is a crafting/upgrade system. That was one the things I mostly enjoyed on The Witcher 2. I just wished the blueprints didn't cost so much, damn! Customize 10 different weapons>>>>100 slightly different weapons with different stats.
I know I'll have a lot of fun customizing the weapons in ME3.

[kregano]

javierabegazo wrote...

Things that are always good for players in my book.
1. Options
2. Emotional or otherwise attachment to equipment, i.e. Ownership

However having to have a player examine 300+ items in any given playthrough isn't so much fun, atleast for most gamers. It's fun to pick up a new item, and experience the difference, tangibly, than to simply give them the comfort of +256 DMG vs +232 DMG

This. I couldn't care about any of my gear or the Normandy in ME1 because while I had options, I never felt like I owned any of it because everything was pretty much the same aside from colors and some numbers. In ME2, I felt like Shepard and the Normandy were mine, because I built the armor I wanted, I upgraded the ship, and I pimped out Shepard's quarters. ME3's system is looking pretty good to me because it gives you a lot of options on how to build your guns, plus different ways to customize class nuilds, giving you more complete ownership of Shepard.

[Big_Stupid_Jelly]

javierabegazo wrote...

I recently played the demo for Dungeoun Seige III on Xbox Live.

After EVERY fight encounter, I get atleast 2 new weapons. This is totally pointless, and not fun, and feels more like a chore, and gives me far less attachment to my weapons.

Whilst I agree to some extent, 'attachment to weapons'? they aren't pets or lovers.

I upgraded my weapons either through aquisitioning loot or purchasing in ME1 so I could stay alive longer, the same as in ME2 though without the purchasing bit - There was absolutely no attachment and I didn't kiss them before bedtime either.

[AlanC9]

Big_Stupid_Jelly wrote...
Whilst I agree to some extent, 'attachment to weapons'? they aren't pets or lovers.

Didn't you ever talk to Zaeed? Or watch Firefly?

But yeah, attachment to items is more of a fantasy thing.

[KingDan97]

Big_Stupid_Jelly wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

I recently played the demo for Dungeoun Seige III on Xbox Live.

After EVERY fight encounter, I get atleast 2 new weapons. This is totally pointless, and not fun, and feels more like a chore, and gives me far less attachment to my weapons.

Whilst I agree to some extent, 'attachment to weapons'? they aren't pets or lovers.

I upgraded my weapons either through aquisitioning loot or purchasing in ME1 so I could stay alive longer, the same as in ME2 though without the purchasing bit - There was absolutely no attachment and I didn't kiss them before bedtime either.

In the army, when you pass basic and head on to real training, you get a rifle. It's your rifle and you are personally responsible for maintaining it, and keeping it in proper working order. Most soldiers hold into their first rifle for a large portion of their military career, and even if they retire it they oftentimes keep it(see Zaeed).

Not working as a good example? Okay, how about this. Have you ever played an FPS online? Do you have a favorite weapon, or a favorite few weapons? Yeah. That's the basic gist of it, he didn't mean a loving attachment, just an attachment.

[Big_Stupid_Jelly]

AlanC9 wrote...

Big_Stupid_Jelly wrote...
Whilst I agree to some extent, 'attachment to weapons'? they aren't pets or lovers.

Didn't you ever talk to Zaeed? Or watch Firefly?

But yeah, attachment to items is more of a fantasy thing.

I talked to him and i've seen Firefly, he's insane, pumped up on Revenge and the series was quite good.

Weapons are a tool, I don't pet my washing machine.

[Big_Stupid_Jelly]

KingDan97 wrote...

Big_Stupid_Jelly wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

I recently played the demo for Dungeoun Seige III on Xbox Live.

After EVERY fight encounter, I get atleast 2 new weapons. This is totally pointless, and not fun, and feels more like a chore, and gives me far less attachment to my weapons.

Whilst I agree to some extent, 'attachment to weapons'? they aren't pets or lovers.

I upgraded my weapons either through aquisitioning loot or purchasing in ME1 so I could stay alive longer, the same as in ME2 though without the purchasing bit - There was absolutely no attachment and I didn't kiss them before bedtime either.

In the army, when you pass basic and head on to real training, you get a rifle. It's your rifle and you are personally responsible for maintaining it, and keeping it in proper working order. Most soldiers hold into their first rifle for a large portion of their military career, and even if they retire it they oftentimes keep it(see Zaeed).

Not working as a good example? Okay, how about this. Have you ever played an FPS online? Do you have a favorite weapon, or a favorite few weapons? Yeah. That's the basic gist of it, he didn't mean a loving attachment, just an attachment.

Can't say I have an attachment of any kind really, apart from using an AR for short/medium range and a Sniper Rifle for distance, but for me thats fairly logical - anything outside those aspects doesn't compute with me i'm afraid.

[Pepper4]

Whiners are gonna whine.

Whatever Bioware does, people keep complaining.

[Bnol]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I would gladly give up the inventory system if it means that I don't have to sort out the junk after every fight and spend more time in the menus than actually playing the game. Have never understood the obsession about it, either. It's just tedious and drags the flow of the game down. Probably why ME1 felt like it was a lot longer than ME2, when it's actually shorter. Because I spend the majority of that time flipping through menus until I find the best stuff in the game.

ME2 had loot too. It just kept the interaction with the loot to a minimum and sorted it all out for me.

Not to mention that the guns had their own identity and could be picked based on preference instead of stats. I'd gladly give up the inventory if it means that I can spend more time with actually playing the game.

There's nothing complex nor anything important about the inventory in ME1.

I'd rather spend more time with the characters.

This

I would also add that I hate the carrot based argument for loot.  We should expect more from developers (of all games not just ME) than to paint over  the lack of either gameplay or story rewards with generic loot.  The sidemissions should offer more information into the ME universe or its characters, or they should be unique combat experiences.  They can be unique combat experiences through time limitations, unique environments (zero g, limited visibility, radiation), defending locations/people, making a retreat from overwhelming numbers, etc.  We saw some of the side missions in ME2 have some of those combat experiences, but there were many side missions (most of the merc based ones) that were traditional fare with no story.  Instead of just putting in a loot system to gloss over their defects, those uninteresting side missions really should be improved.

I mean if you really need that carrot, it should be in the form of experience.  Make the difference be more than a couple levels.  They should have also put a lot more resources in the side missions, thus you could reduce the amount of mining (or elminate the need to mine at all) by doing the side missions.  Thus, you still have a reward, without needing the random loot system.

[Iakus]

kregano wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Things that are always good for players in my book.
1. Options
2. Emotional or otherwise attachment to equipment, i.e. Ownership

However having to have a player examine 300+ items in any given playthrough isn't so much fun, atleast for most gamers. It's fun to pick up a new item, and experience the difference, tangibly, than to simply give them the comfort of +256 DMG vs +232 DMG

This. I couldn't care about any of my gear or the Normandy in ME1 because while I had options, I never felt like I owned any of it because everything was pretty much the same aside from colors and some numbers. In ME2, I felt like Shepard and the Normandy were mine, because I built the armor I wanted, I upgraded the ship, and I pimped out Shepard's quarters. ME3's system is looking pretty good to me because it gives you a lot of options on how to build your guns, plus different ways to customize class nuilds, giving you more complete ownership of Shepard.

While I agree with the sentiment, I didn't get that sense of ownership with any ME2 weapon save perhaps the one you get from the Collector ship.  Oh, and my choice of heavy weapon, for those fights when it mattered.  The weapons you find otherwise are pretty much the same as any merc you're facing.  You can't customize it to your tastes, just upgrade it in a slow, linear fashion  They weren't my weapons, they were just my loadout.

ME3 should remedy that.  It looks like in ME3, if I'm using a Carnifex, it will be my Carnifex.  My Widow is my Widow.  Not Legion's.  Mine.

I am looking forward to Shep's quarters, of course.  I better get my dogtags back.  And my Hamster.  Boo and I have been through a lot together.

[Kenthen]

Loot, the way it worked in ME1, was pointless and uninteresting. All it did was force me to destroy or sell my useless trash so I could make room for even more useless trash.
Part of that is because every single assault rifle in ME1 was the same but with each one having slightly more oomph than the last one, same with any other type of gun. And you picked up countless, countless amounts of the same crap in any given level range.

At least in ME2 they're different in how they handle, some more than others. However, I still wouldn't care for having to lug around and then sort through fifty Mattock rifles and god knows how much other crap I might have stuffed down my pants.

Maybe if there was actually some reason for it other than just selling them for coffee money.

Modifié par Kenthen, 02 juillet 2011 - 07:36 .

[the_one_54321]

EternalPink wrote...
Seems a lot of people are caught up on things like stats when these are a carry over from pen and paper role playing were you had dice and so on to attempt to simulate chance,

You misunderstand. I think it's borderline idiotic to call a franchise like Mass Effect a series of RPGs. But I also don't think that matters at all.

EternalPink wrote...
(how many people actually understood THAC0 from the BG games? be honest)

Are you joking? I hope you're joking. It's not hard to understand at all. Not even a little bit. Kids these days... (that was tongue in cheek, don't take it personally)

[sbvera13]

Gravbh wrote...

I think ME3 (and 2's) direction is fine. Even ME1 was billed as a shooter/rpg hybrid. 2 greatly improved the actual shooter part. 3 will hopefully strike the perfect balance for the hybrid.

Ok forumites, time for the gravy.  I hear this a lot- that ME2 improved the shooter portion. How? I don't see it; I've mentioned this many times.  It's monotonous, has little/no ai, no variation, no tactical options, just and endless series of hallways/bridges/trails with waist height boxes to hide behind.   The control interface is smoother, but thats about all I could find that actualyl improved.

ME1 was not so amazing either, but it broke it up and added gameplay variety to compensate.  Like finding those salarians on virmire, unveiling Vigil right in the middle of an otherwise tense moment, or tying your progress into an epic cutscene as you storm the citadel.  All of these broke up the monotony and took the focus away from the combat, which while flawed, is forgivable because it's obviously not and never was the main point of the game.  ME2 has no such fallback- it's combat, combat, combat, dialogues, back to Normandy, appx 30 times repeated.

So heres the challenge: What about combat improved? What mechanics, level design, weapon design, enemy AI/encounter, made it better?  I personally can find very little, so here's your chance to convince me.  My mind is open.

[the_one_54321]

Mostly the UI improved. It stopped trying to be a "hybrid" (which was a bad idea to begin with) and focused on mostly just being a good shooter. This resulted in a more coherent UI which was a step up. Though for the most part it was still a mediocre shooter, save for the interesting story.

[littlezack]

 What mechanics, level design, weapon design, enemy AI/encounter, made it better?

You're mind isn't really open; you've made up your mind, you've got your opinion, and nothing anybody says is going to change that. But, okay, let's play.

Level Design? Don't get me started. When it came to combat, ME1 put you in one of three environments - space station, space base, and a mine. They moved the crates around, but that was it, at least as far as the sidemissions go. I always find it funny that DA2 did the exact same damn thing and it's one of the main things people complain about with it, but nobody whines about the repeated environments in ME1. With ME2, the sidemissions all take place in unique environments. They're not all copy and pasted from one another with a bunch of crates moved around.

Weapon design? ME1 had four weapons. Oh, well, no, it had four weapons...and a bunch of others that were essentially the same thing with color swaps. Not even a real contest.

Enemies? At least ME2 has three different varieties of mercs with their own backstories and fighting styles and preferred weapons. 'Enemy is everywhere, enemy is everywhere!'.

[the_one_54321]

Did you not read the part where I said it's mostly mediocre outside of the story? Who's mind is closed here?

edit: Also, he specifically asked for ways in which it was improved. I listed the one example of significant improvement that I'm aware of. What's so.... whatever it is that you're saying... about that?

Modifié par the_one_54321, 03 juillet 2011 - 04:26 .

[littlezack]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Did you not read the part where I said it's mostly mediocre outside of the story? Who's mind is closed here?

 

Did I read your post that was made right as I was writing mine? Ah...no, I can't say I did. I was too busy writing my post.