3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

Lumikki wrote...
Why not? Violent action doesn't happen in paragon choises. While renegade option can easyly lead in violent action.

Renegade negotiates a buyout deal with a shady elcor merchant while Paragon threatens physical violence. Paragon clocks Zaeed in the chin. Paragon interrupt in Arrival pistol whips a scientist.
Your argument is proven false ingame.

Modifié par Xewaka, 06 juillet 2011 - 01:15 .

[crimzontearz]

^ Paragon interrupt clocks Koliat in the face too

[ODST 5723]

I believe that Shep pistol whips Archer and threatens to shoot him as a paragon interrupt.

Modifié par ODST 5723, 06 juillet 2011 - 01:30 .

[Il Divo]

hangmans tree wrote...

Similar thing was done to powers. You HAD to waste some of them to buy useless for your gamestyle ability only to buy the one you want 3 skill points later.

Mass Effect did the exact same thing. Ex: Unlocking shotguns by putting points in pistols.

[olymind1]

based on the e3 vids, they will increase further the ME2 type leveling:

level1 skill/power requires 1point, level2 2points, level3 3points, level4 4points, level5 5points, level6 6points.

in the vid Shepard was level18, and he had a total 36 skill/power points. i hope they don't limit the max character level limit at 30, because then you can't even max out 3 skills/powers.

the problem is that you actually have to wait even further to achieve a level6 power, if we don't have points 3 level at least.. i think it was better in ME1, because the skill progression was limited by character level and you could invest points in other skills.. in ME2 a skill was maxed out at level 5-6 which is sixth or fifth of the total character level. if the system remains which was presented in the vid, a single skill/power will be maxed out at level 11. i hope BW fine tune it.

IMO it would be better if the skills/powers' rank1-2-3 (linear, no choice) would require 1 point , and rank4-5-6 (non linear, 2 choices) would require 2 points, AND every skills/powers' ranks would be unlockable after predefinied character levels, as appropriate weaker/lower ranks at low character level, and stronger ones at mid-high character level. it is a matter of balance.

also in ME1 Shep became a Spectre, and thanks to that, new skill was available. in ME3 i'd like to see Shepard's skills/powers a bit/minimal story specific at least one.

gaining xp after each kill, i like it better than summary screen.

and maybe some weapons and armors should have character level requirements, as there are no stats. or some weapons would need specific ammo power (high or low rank depending on the weapon) to activate for usage. or some armor needs a specific amount of health to wear (which could be achieved by invest point in a specific high ranked power, but also locks the other one, like in me2 power X level4), or some tech power needs a certain level of omni-tool upgrade to even invest points in it. same for biotic: certain level of biotic amp upgrade required to invest points in some biotic powers. etc...

or put more skills for squadmates, and if 2 skills are available and you invest point(s) in one, the other would be locked for development.

or for squadmate 3 different type of armor not only appearance but also in functionality which gives them bonuses or better in one style than the other, example for Tali: one that is best for tech, one is best for combat, and one for the mix of the previous two. in addition upgrade their armors mods.

each weapon could be find or buy at stores, and maybe each weapons could have 3 levels with small overall improvements compared to previous level (not the +5/10% damage for assault rifle type of upgrading), in the weapon selection screen could be easily swap between (left-right), or in the workbench, (still no inventory, no reason for selling, or manageing inventory) so if somebody would like to use assault rifle A level2 which is precise more and damaging, than assault rifle A level1, but the level1 one with a mod is better against more enemies, and it is still the same assault rifle.

or some enemies only could be killed by tech, or biotic or only with weaponry (like the trolls with fire/acid) so basicly immune against some type of damage type. they would be more diverse.

so with these ideas, even without stats and inventory, the game would feel more
like an rpg,

Modifié par olymind1, 06 juillet 2011 - 01:36 .

[ODST 5723]

Modding is the way to tweak an existing item. Less recoil? Add a compensator. More accuracy? Longer barrel, better sighting/scope.

Increased fire rates? More control at a certain distance?

You don't need to have 3 models of the same base if you get the ability to modify enough parts of it to tune performance. You'll get to those models through modding. You just need the base and the mods. The Omni-tool and any fabrication equipment can take care of the rest.

And it makes more sense within the context of the game universe due to the the Fabribcation Rights Management (FRM) systems in place..

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
Though out of the universe of potential PCs in these games only a minute percentage would wish to take the options that Bio excluded. Which of course is the point; some options are not worth implementing.

Of course. It's just an issue of the game not allowing you to make certain choices in-game because the writers do have some idea of who the character could be.

[hangmans tree]

Lumikki wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

Progression in ME2 was very strictly controlled giving an illusion of free choice.

How was ME1, DAO or any other Biowares game any different?
You access and choises is totally based you level progression in story.
That's what linear progression does.

And how is this revelant to my post?
I'm not comparing any of these games. I just made a statement of insufficient freedom in leveling up, loot and tech advancement...in ME2->ME3(probably)

There should be something like standard, modable weapons for purchase at certain shops, on every planet preferably. Quest aquireable, modable weapons - specific to NPC/location. And rare weapons, not modable, one of a kind gems which require titanic effort to obtain.

Regarding powers and abilities - I'd like 'em all to be open from the begining (specific to each class) and then branching to derivatives which in turn may be restricted to level/plot point/nimber of skill-power points spent...

Modifié par hangmans tree, 06 juillet 2011 - 03:36 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I was responding to the_one's claims that BioWare's previous games had done the same thing, but they hadn't.  When the Warden consents to the joining ceremony, he does so because the player directed him to.  When the Bhaalspawn accepts Shandalar's punishment, it is because the player chose acquiesence.  When the Hero of Neverwinter infiltrates the Bloodsailors, it is because the player wanted him to do so.

KoTOR forces you to pick someone to escape from Malak. You cannot demand everyone surrender or attempt to kill and capture Bastilla at that point and beg for Malak's mercy. That's a rather egrigious example.

ETA:

DA:O also forces you to drink from the chalice Duncan hands you in the cut-scene.

Though out of the universe of potential PCs in these games only a minute percentage would wish to take the options that Bio excluded. Which of course is the point; some options are not worth implementing.

No, that is not the point that Sylvius was trying to make. And changing the point changes the entire argument. Please don't do that.

[JayhartRIC]

Xewaka wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Why not? Violent action doesn't happen in paragon choises. While renegade option can easyly lead in violent action.

Renegade negotiates a buyout deal with a shady elcor merchant while Paragon threatens physical violence. Paragon clocks Zaeed in the chin. Paragon interrupt in Arrival pistol whips a scientist.
Your argument is proven false ingame.

I actually liked this.  I think it gave a less"black and white" feel which was supposed to be the point of their morality system.  It wasn't supposed to just be good and evil.  Regardless of Shepard's moral alignment, she is a battle-hardened warrior and knows there is a time to fight.  Protecting the downtrodden will involve cracking skulls occasionally.

Modifié par JayhartRIC, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:07 .

[sp0ck 06]

[

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I was responding to the_one's claims that BioWare's previous games had done the same thing, but they hadn't.  When the Warden consents to the joining ceremony, he does so because the player directed him to.  When the Bhaalspawn accepts Shandalar's punishment, it is because the player chose acquiesence.  When the Hero of Neverwinter infiltrates the Bloodsailors, it is because the player wanted him to do so.

Eh?  You don't have a choice as the Warden to not consent to the joining ceremony.  You don't have a choice as the Bhaalspawn to not rescue Imoen.

How is ME any different?

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I was responding to the_one's claims that BioWare's previous games had done the same thing, but they hadn't.  When the Warden consents to the joining ceremony, he does so because the player directed him to.  When the Bhaalspawn accepts Shandalar's punishment, it is because the player chose acquiesence.  When the Hero of Neverwinter infiltrates the Bloodsailors, it is because the player wanted him to do so.

KoTOR forces you to pick someone to escape from Malak. You cannot demand everyone surrender or attempt to kill and capture Bastilla at that point and beg for Malak's mercy. That's a rather egrigious example.

ETA:

DA:O also forces you to drink from the chalice Duncan hands you in the cut-scene.

Though out of the universe of potential PCs in these games only a minute percentage would wish to take the options that Bio excluded. Which of course is the point; some options are not worth implementing.

No, that is not the point that Sylvius was trying to make. And changing the point changes the entire argument. Please don't do that.

I meant it was In Exile's point. Not Sylvius' point.

[Lumikki]

JayhartRIC wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Why not? Violent action doesn't happen in paragon choises. While renegade option can easyly lead in violent action.

Renegade negotiates a buyout deal with a shady elcor merchant while Paragon threatens physical violence. Paragon clocks Zaeed in the chin. Paragon interrupt in Arrival pistol whips a scientist.
Your argument is proven false ingame.

I actually liked this.  I think it gave a less"black and white" feel which was supposed to be the point of their morality system.  It wasn't supposed to just be good and evil.  Regardless of Shepard's moral alignment, she is a battle-hardened warrior and knows there is a time to fight.  Protecting the downtrodden will involve cracking skulls occasionally.

I don't know.

You people seem to treat like paragon choise is like care paths. If you choose one, then that's all you do. I never do that, I do all kind of choises even when I'm paragon. Meaning the choises for me aren't care path of morality, but as choise what kind of attitude Shepards takes in situation. If you can't trust Shepards attitude in situation when doing choise, then what's the point.

So, it can be black and white, but when mixing choises it become gray. If you make all choises gray, then there is no black and white choises for people, who actually see situation in black and white. You force them in gray area.

[Sidney]

olymind1 wrote...

1. in the vid Shepard was level18, and he had a total 36 skill/power points. i hope they don't limit the max character level limit at 30, because then you can't even max out 3 skills/powers.

2. gaining xp after each kill, i like it better than summary screen.

3. and maybe some weapons and armors should have character level requirements,

1. Who cares if you can max out or not? You have to make choices with your skill poitns and that is what matters.

2. XP per kill is meaningless, they should only allow the level up at home anyweays no magically getting better mid-firefight. That's just dumb at least at home I can imagine training or something helping me get better.

3. Why do these things ever have level requirements? The "strength" requirements type stuff is marginally sensible assuming certain armors weight more - then again all playe should have the same not the goofy this plate needs a 42 and this needs a 20.  Level OTOH makes no sense.  How does the armor know you can't wear it?

You last two points are just lame RPG tropes that slap you in the face with "game mechanism for the sake of game mechanism". The last in particular is just a lazy way around level scaling loot.

[Xewaka]

Lumikki wrote...
You people seem to treat like paragon choise is like care paths. If you choose one, then that's all you do. I never do that, I do all kind of choises even when I'm paragon. Meaning the choises for me aren't care path of morality, but as choise what kind of attitude Shepards takes in situation.

Again, the game does not show that. You cannot know beforehand what attitude will Shepard take towards a defined situation. The general outliers indicated you indicated for Shepard are inconsistent within the game. Besides, the game mechanics, at least in ME 2, practically force you to always pick the same option, unless you want even more dialogue options randomly blacked out. I know if it weren't for the metagaming requirement welded into the system I'd take more neutral choices and skip more interrupts.

Lumikki wrote...
If you can't trust Shepards attitude in situation when doing choise, then what's the point.

Exactly. You can't know how Shepard will act nor what will s/he say (and more importantly, what s/he will not say) when using the paraphrases. Paraphrases fail at allowing the player make choices.

Modifié par Xewaka, 06 juillet 2011 - 04:42 .

[Sidney]

Xewaka wrote...
Exactly. You can't know how Shepard will act nor what will s/he say (and more importantly, what s/he will not say) when using the paraphrases. Paraphrases fail at allowing the player make choices.

Do you play in an English version of the game? I ask because maybe localization is awful and that accounts for the number of people who can't understand the paraphrases. The other option being people who are awful at reading comprehension because I've never had Shep act out of line in anyway disproportionate with errors in selecting from the wall of text.

[Xewaka]

Sidney wrote...
Do you play in an English version of the game? I ask because maybe localization is awful and that accounts for the number of people who can't understand the paraphrases. The other option being people who are awful at reading comprehension because I've never had Shep act out of line in anyway disproportionate with errors in selecting from the wall of text.

I challenge you to replay the Horizon part of Mass Effect 2 without Shepard being the first to bring Cerberus to the conversation and without consulting a guide to know which options will allow you to do so. Because I had to resort to trial and error to find out it was possible, after about ten tries.
I have played both original english and spanish localization. Both are equally misleading. Paraphrases, by their character limit, cannot carry more than a basic information of the resulting dialogue, and the more complex the dialogue, the more the paraphrase fails.

[AlanC9]

I'm with Sidney there; I simply haven't had the problems with paraphrases that some folks insist are omnipresent. Perhaps some of us are more attuned to Bio's style?

Some time ago Sylvius and I discussed an experiment for the next batch of Bio paraphrases, which I guess will be a DA2 DLC. Participants go into the first couple of convos cold, and write down what we believe the substance of the lines will be, and why, before choosing our lines.

[AlanC9]

Xewaka wrote...

I challenge you to replay the Horizon part of Mass Effect 2 without Shepard being the first to bring Cerberus to the conversation and without consulting a guide to know which options will allow you to do so. Because I had to resort to trial and error to find out it was possible, after about ten tries.

I'm a little confused; haven't replayed ME2 in a couple of months. What were you trying to do there? And more importantly, why were you trying to do it?

[Xewaka]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
I challenge you to replay the Horizon part of Mass Effect 2 without Shepard being the first to bring Cerberus to the conversation and without consulting a guide to know which options will allow you to do so. Because I had to resort to trial and error to find out it was possible, after about ten tries.

I'm a little confused; haven't replayed ME2 in a couple of months. What were you trying to do there? And more importantly, why were you trying to do it?

I was trying to keep Shepard's implication with Cerberus hidden, as he (as a Sole Survivor) was bitter to have to work with them and wanted to try to keep the least people knowing about it. Specially people who respected him.

[Sidney]

Xewaka wrote...
I was trying to keep Shepard's implication with Cerberus hidden, as he (as a Sole Survivor) was bitter to have to work with them and wanted to try to keep the least people knowing about it. Specially people who respected him.

Not really a paraphrase problem as much as a dialog problem. If the option isn't there or isn't associated with the dialog you want it doesn't matter paraphrase or not. The same failing could happen in full text versions. I've had plenty of times in any wall of text option that I'm picking the least bad option because none of them really fit the way I want to play my character.

[upsettingshorts]

It's a paraphrase problem - and I say this as someone who approves of them generally - because 1 of the options does let you avoid the issue, but it's impossible to tell which one it is the way the paraphrases are worded.

That said, the example you raise about none of the full text options being in-character is perfectly legitimate.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:17 .

[Xewaka]

Sidney wrote...
Not really a paraphrase problem as much as a dialog problem. If the option isn't there or isn't associated with the dialog you want it doesn't matter paraphrase or not. The same failing could happen in full text versions. I've had plenty of times in any wall of text option that I'm picking the least bad option because none of them really fit the way I want to play my character.

As Shorts pointed out, the option IS there. There's no way to know which one it is going by the paraphrases alone.
As for picking the least bad option, it is easier to do so when you know the content of each option, thus picking which adjust closer to what you originally intended, as opposed to blindly pick either of the three information lacking paraphrases and then have to rationalize the misfitting yet already picked guess.

Modifié par Xewaka, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:24 .

[AlanC9]

I dunno; this sounds like a paraphrase problem to me, Sidney. The criteria Xewaka wanted to use to pick the "least bad option" aren't available in the paraphrases.

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 juillet 2011 - 05:23 .

[Halo Quea]

Sidney wrote...

olymind1 wrote...

1. in the vid Shepard was level18, and he had a total 36 skill/power points. i hope they don't limit the max character level limit at 30, because then you can't even max out 3 skills/powers.

2. gaining xp after each kill, i like it better than summary screen.

3. and maybe some weapons and armors should have character level requirements,

1. Who cares if you can max out or not? You have to make choices with your skill poitns and that is what matters.

This would be a good point if you didn't have to invest points in ammo powers.   That's like saying that an experienced soldier needs advanced training just to load his guns.    It's just a ridiculous notion.