161 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

Varen Spectre wrote...
Mmm, what if  visual weapon customization was accesible in centralized inventory?

Centralized inventory and visual weapon customization can't work together. They are completely different systems of viewing and managing information.

At best, you are thinking of a central point of access to all inventories, which is not a centralized inventory, it's like your personal terminal in ME2.

[Varen Spectre]

Phaedon wrote...

Centralized inventory and visual weapon customization can't work together. They are completely different systems of viewing and managing information.

At best, you are thinking of a central point of access to all inventories, which is not a centralized inventory, it's like your personal terminal in ME2.

Well, maybe I need to learn what do you mean by "visual weapon customization" and "centralized inventory " first. I guess I had the wrong idea...

But, yes, I probably meant "central point of access" to all inventories which would either redirect player to particular menu screen with all necessary details and options related to particular item (personally, I would like to see something like that) or would display all the details on the same screen. Something like...

... and please don't get scared, it's not actual proposal for ME 3, just a demostration of what I thought was "visual weapon customization" and "centralized inventory " on the same screen (and I would not like to see it that way) 



(clickable)

So,... I guess,... my original question was... What's your take on "central point of access" both, in general and on it being available for player throughout the whole game?

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 29 juillet 2011 - 01:13 .

[Bluko]

Can someone explain to me why buying and selling stuff is bad for the game?

If it's because Shepard is a soldier you may have a point, but they're also are/were a Spectre which kind of means they're responsible for outfitting themselves. In effect I'm sure many Spectres have their own let's say more discreet forms of income to further such endeavors. Also while most governments do outfit their soldiers, that's not always the case.

I dunno would these games really be that much better if Anderson just gave you one rifle and a pistol and that's all you could use the entire game? Also the Alliance issued weapon happens to be cheap mass-manufactured junk that jams. And your armor is pitfully sub-par compared to Mercs who have their own income to get the very best gear. But who cares all we need is a uniform and our fists right?

More selection is better IMO. Heck it use to be selling point for shooters on how many guns they had. Not that I think anyone really wants ME1's over-burdening abudance of items to scroll though/omni-gel. I can live without that.

But I would appreciate being able to buy and sell some stuff. What's the point of credits other then being an obscure level system such as in ME2? Why not just let players choose what gun or armor they unlock after each level seeing as how XP and Credits are tied solely to Missions. If you're going to add currency there should be multiple ways to earn it and also spend it. Would it really be so bad if you could buy and sell resources or mods? Isn't a limited selection good as it forces you to use that nogin and make some choices about how you want to play.

Honestly ME2 just made things stupid simple. Heck there are a number of straight-up shooters that have deeper economies and RPG mechanics. It's embarrassing really. Story is great and all, but that doesn't mean diddly squat to the vast majority of people who play games. Gameplay will always rule supreme, story is simply an added bonus, one that Bioware usually does well.

[Phaedon]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Centralized inventory and visual weapon customization can't work together. They are completely different systems of viewing and managing information.

At best, you are thinking of a central point of access to all inventories, which is not a centralized inventory, it's like your personal terminal in ME2.

Well, maybe I need to learn what do you mean by "visual weapon customization" and "centralized inventory " first. I guess I had the wrong idea...

But, yes, I probably meant "central point of access" to all inventories which would either redirect player to particular menu screen with all necessary details and options related to particular item (personally, I would like to see something like that) or would display all the details on the same screen. Something like...

... and please don't get scared, it's not actual proposal for ME 3, just a demostration of what I thought was "visual weapon customization" and "centralized inventory " on the same screen (and I would not like to see it that way) 



(clickable)

So,... I guess,... my original question was... What's your take on "central point of access" both, in general and on it being available for player throughout the whole game?

I am afraid I really don't want this, and I think that it would cause problems with customization. Limited space is not a good think, especially such a small one like this.

You could carry what, three upgrades at best? All of which apply to different parts and are probably compatible with only a specific weapon type?

[Phaedon]

Bluko wrote...

Can someone explain to me why buying and selling stuff is bad for the game?

If it's because Shepard is a soldier you may have a point, but they're also are/were a Spectre which kind of means they're responsible for outfitting themselves. In effect I'm sure many Spectres have their own let's say more discreet forms of income to further such endeavors. Also while most governments do outfit their soldiers, that's not always the case.

I dunno would these games really be that much better if Anderson just gave you one rifle and a pistol and that's all you could use the entire game? Also the Alliance issued weapon happens to be cheap mass-manufactured junk that jams. And your armor is pitfully sub-par compared to Mercs who have their own income to get the very best gear. But who cares all we need is a uniform and our fists right?

More selection is better IMO. Heck it use to be selling point for shooters on how many guns they had. Not that I think anyone really wants ME1's over-burdening abudance of items to scroll though/omni-gel. I can live without that.

But I would appreciate being able to buy and sell some stuff. What's the point of credits other then being an obscure level system such as in ME2? Why not just let players choose what gun or armor they unlock after each level seeing as how XP and Credits are tied solely to Missions. If you're going to add currency there should be multiple ways to earn it and also spend it. Would it really be so bad if you could buy and sell resources or mods? Isn't a limited selection good as it forces you to use that nogin and make some choices about how you want to play.

You could buy stuff in ME2, no question about it. Selling? No, and for a good reason. There wasn't much to sell and what was left was pretty important.

Maybe do it with upgrades. Weapons? Nope.

Honestly ME2 just made things stupid simple. Heck there are a number of straight-up shooters that have deeper economies and RPG mechanics. It's embarrassing really. Story is great and all, but that doesn't mean diddly squat to the vast majority of people who play games. Gameplay will always rule supreme, story is simply an added bonus, one that Bioware usually does well.

Having stuff that happenned to exist in other games which called themselves too as RPGs, for the sake of just having them? 

Like Deus Ex with the very limited selection in armoury and the even more limited inventory? No, thanks, I'll pass.

Different things work for different games. And please, let's not act as if the gameplay was horrible in either of the games, the majority either liked it or considered it's flaws compensated by the story. Hyperboles really don't help.

Modifié par Phaedon, 29 juillet 2011 - 01:57 .

[kregano]

Bluko wrote...

Can someone explain to me why buying and selling stuff is bad for the game?

If it's because Shepard is a soldier you may have a point, but they're also are/were a Spectre which kind of means they're responsible for outfitting themselves. In effect I'm sure many Spectres have their own let's say more discreet forms of income to further such endeavors. Also while most governments do outfit their soldiers, that's not always the case.

I dunno would these games really be that much better if Anderson just gave you one rifle and a pistol and that's all you could use the entire game? Also the Alliance issued weapon happens to be cheap mass-manufactured junk that jams. And your armor is pitfully sub-par compared to Mercs who have their own income to get the very best gear. But who cares all we need is a uniform and our fists right?

More selection is better IMO. Heck it use to be selling point for shooters on how many guns they had. Not that I think anyone really wants ME1's over-burdening abudance of items to scroll though/omni-gel. I can live without that.

But I would appreciate being able to buy and sell some stuff. What's the point of credits other then being an obscure level system such as in ME2? Why not just let players choose what gun or armor they unlock after each level seeing as how XP and Credits are tied solely to Missions. If you're going to add currency there should be multiple ways to earn it and also spend it. Would it really be so bad if you could buy and sell resources or mods? Isn't a limited selection good as it forces you to use that nogin and make some choices about how you want to play.

Honestly ME2 just made things stupid simple. Heck there are a number of straight-up shooters that have deeper economies and RPG mechanics. It's embarrassing really. Story is great and all, but that doesn't mean diddly squat to the vast majority of people who play games. Gameplay will always rule supreme, story is simply an added bonus, one that Bioware usually does well.

No one has a problem buying things. It's selling things that's the issue.

Because this setting makes selling most things absolutely worthless since you can build anything if you have the blueprints and raw materials. Selling the raw minerals make sense, since they have some value, but the guns and armor are going to get you nothing really. Maybe you could get something for selling blueprints/schematics, but it's not going to be a lot.

Modifié par kregano, 29 juillet 2011 - 01:57 .

[ThePwener]

I don't think any of these is accurate. Me2's inventory was simple and popular. I doubt they'll revert it to the unpopular mess that ME1's inventory "system" was. It'll probably be a mixture of ME1's mod purchasing (ability to buy an indefinite amount of mods like most games do instead of having a series of unique ones) and being able to collect weapons from various sources like ME2.

It's balanced, easy and sweet.

[RGFrog]

kregano wrote...
No one has a problem buying things. It's selling things that's the issue.

Because this setting makes selling most things absolutely worthless since you can build anything if you have the blueprints and raw materials. Selling the raw minerals make sense, since they have some value, but the guns and armor are going to get you nothing really. Maybe you could get something for selling blueprints/schematics, but it's not going to be a lot.

I completely disagree. If it was just a matter of blueprints then everyone in the universe would have Mattocks, Revenants, Widows and Claymores.

I don't think the Normandy has a manufacturing plant on board, so you're going to have to go somewhere to get things. Sure, you can pick up weapons, but that's not making them. And if you could make them, why bother with picking them up?

Granted, I don't want a 1000 page inventory, but a salvage system would work well. Pick up what you don't have and tag everything else. When you're gone a crew picks it up and kicks your account a finder's fee. Excess mining resources could be traded for built weapons/upgrade items or sold outright for credits.

But there does have to be some measure of selling. Shep cannot exist solely on stealing credits from dead merc pda's and TIM isn't going to be paying him a sum at the end of each mission any longer.

There are a number of things that can be done with an inventory system in the ME universe that have nothing to do with hauling around tons of stuff in an invisible cart.

[Nashiktal]

Actually the normandy DOES have a manufacturing plant. Everytime you pick up a weapon, EDI replicates it after scanning it so all of your squadmates will have weapons.

Although its not as much as a plant, as much as it is a 3d printer thing.

[Phaedon]

RGFrog wrote...
I completely disagree. If it was just a matter of blueprints then everyone in the universe would have Mattocks, Revenants, Widows and Claymores.

I don't think the Normandy has a manufacturing plant on board, so you're going to have to go somewhere to get things. Sure, you can pick up weapons, but that's not making them. And if you could make them, why bother with picking them up?

Granted, I don't want a 1000 page inventory, but a salvage system would work well. Pick up what you don't have and tag everything else. When you're gone a crew picks it up and kicks your account a finder's fee. Excess mining resources could be traded for built weapons/upgrade items or sold outright for credits.

But there does have to be some measure of selling. Shep cannot exist solely on stealing credits from dead merc pda's and TIM isn't going to be paying him a sum at the end of each mission any longer.

There are a number of things that can be done with an inventory system in the ME universe that have nothing to do with hauling around tons of stuff in an invisible cart.

First off, yes, not everyone has Mattocks, because you a) Need to have a fabricator to reproduce these items, As well as some sort of blueprint, and mind you, they don't just upload industrial schematics online.

I know for a fact that the Revenant has copy protection, maybe the Widow as well, you can confirm that on their descriptions, and well, yes, the Normandy SR2 definitely has a manufacturing plant. It has been explained that this is why squadmates can use the weapons you pick up as well.

And by that logic, ME1's inventory is nonsensical.

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...
Having stuff that happenned to exist in other games which called themselves too as RPGs, for the sake of just having them? 

Like Deus Ex with the very limited selection in armoury and the even more limited inventory? No, thanks, I'll pass.

Different things work for different games. And please, let's not act as if the gameplay was horrible in either of the games, the majority either liked it or considered it's flaws compensated by the story. Hyperboles really don't help.

Do you have any idea how epicly ironic it is that you just accused someone else of hyperbole?  Especially given the sentence that preceeded it?

I'll help you out.  Please link us to your survey of every gamer on the planet that conclusively shows that the "Majority" feels as you claim.

You very often make grandiose claims that are clearly wrong,  or come up with blown out of proportion hyperbole in an attempt to "Defend" Bioware from all criticism.

Case in point,  ME2's AI was mindnumbingly bad,  even by 1990's standards.  "Go to this point,  stand there,  and repeat actions endlessly" weren't acceptable by the end of the 90's.  Here you are claiming it wasn't horrible.  It's seriously not much better than playing Area 51.

I'll head off the response now by reiterating,  sites have already been shown to review publishers,  not games.  DA2 showed that pretty clearly.

The most ironic part of all is,  the people criticising Bioware are trying to help,  and your blind defense doesn't.

Modifié par Gatt9, 29 juillet 2011 - 02:30 .

[kregano]

RGFrog wrote...

kregano wrote...
No one has a problem buying things. It's selling things that's the issue.

Because this setting makes selling most things absolutely worthless since you can build anything if you have the blueprints and raw materials. Selling the raw minerals make sense, since they have some value, but the guns and armor are going to get you nothing really. Maybe you could get something for selling blueprints/schematics, but it's not going to be a lot.

I completely disagree. If it was just a matter of blueprints then everyone in the universe would have Mattocks, Revenants, Widows and Claymores.

I don't think the Normandy has a manufacturing plant on board, so you're going to have to go somewhere to get things. Sure, you can pick up weapons, but that's not making them. And if you could make them, why bother with picking them up?

Granted, I don't want a 1000 page inventory, but a salvage system would work well. Pick up what you don't have and tag everything else. When you're gone a crew picks it up and kicks your account a finder's fee. Excess mining resources could be traded for built weapons/upgrade items or sold outright for credits.

But there does have to be some measure of selling. Shep cannot exist solely on stealing credits from dead merc pda's and TIM isn't going to be paying him a sum at the end of each mission any longer.

There are a number of things that can be done with an inventory system in the ME universe that have nothing to do with hauling around tons of stuff in an invisible cart.

Dude, one of those Shurikens you start off with costs 20 credits. The gun itself is worthless.

And there are reasons that Mattocks, Revenants, Widows, and Claymores aren't everyone: not everyone can use them and they have future DRM on the blueprints.

[Nashiktal]

Really with the way guns work in the ME universe, most of the weapons are probably really cheap. The actual gun economy probably runs on heatsinks an ammo blocks.

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...
Do you have any idea how epicly ironic it is that you just accused someone else of hyperbole?  Especially given the sentence that preceeded it?

About limited selection and inventory in Deus Ex? It's true. 

I'll help you out.  Please link us to your survey of every gamer on the planet that conclusively shows that the "Majority" feels as you claim.

Metacritic scores, not good enough for you? Obviously the gameplay wasn't bad enough for either games that the story didn't compensate.

You very often make grandiose claims that are clearly wrong,  or come up with blown out of proportion hyperbole in an attempt to "Defend" Bioware from all criticism.

Uh-huh. Tell us about how all RPGs are inspired by PnPs.

Case in point,  ME2's AI was mindnumbingly bad,  even by 1990's standards.  "Go to this point,  stand there,  and repeat actions endlessly" weren't acceptable by the end of the 90's.  Here you are claiming it wasn't horrible.  It's seriously not much better than playing Area 51.

Heheh, hyperboles. If ME2's was bad, then what about ME1's? 

I just love the fact that you mentioned the 90s. Not 2000 or 2005, or something, derp. And if ME2 or 1 have the worst AI you have seen, you really don't play that many games.

I'll head off the response now by reiterating,  sites have already been shown to review publishers,  not games.  DA2 showed that pretty clearly.

Fan Reviews. Read them.

The most ironic part of all is,  the people criticising Bioware are trying to help,  and your blind defense doesn't.

Yeah, sure, it's blind defense. Last time I checked, my post had arguments, explain why limited inventory is wrong. Yours is about accusing reviewer sites and talking about hyperboles. Read your post again, pal.

Helping? Oh, please. No one is naive to think that all of the criticism is naive.
Most isn't, you know, in fact, I'd call it blind. Rose tinted glasses with low opacity strike again.

Modifié par Phaedon, 29 juillet 2011 - 02:44 .

[Whatever42]

Phaedon wrote...

Confirmed not to return by Jesse Houston in a live stream not too long ago.

Thank you very much!

[Varen Spectre]

Phaedon wrote...

I am afraid I really don't want this, and I think that it would cause problems with customization. Limited space is not a good think, especially such a small one like this.

You could carry what, three upgrades at best? All of which apply to different parts and are probably compatible with only a specific weapon type?

Well, again we are misunderstanding each other a lot:lol: like soo many times before:pinched: ...

But, at least I know your opinion on one of the asked options. And I agree, like I stated myself, I would not want it that way either.

Now for the second and more important part of the question... What if there was some kind of centralized(?) inventory...

(again, I'll use a picture, to make myself more understandable though I do not propose it to work / look that way - it is an old picture, I made for a different thread)



in which player could select an item... and new screen dedicated solely to that item with all the necessary options, stats and upgrades would appear...



(maybe something like this or basically the weapon bench (screen) from ME 3 for weapons but accessible from inventory screen)

I guess, this is what you would call "central point of acces" (I might be wrong again though^_^) and this was my main question in the first place - What do you think about it in general and what do you think about it being available to player throughout the whole game / missions?

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 29 juillet 2011 - 03:04 .

[Lumikki]

RGFrog wrote...

But there does have to be some measure of selling. Shep cannot exist solely on stealing credits from dead merc pda's and TIM isn't going to be paying him a sum at the end of each mission any longer.

There are a number of things that can be done with an inventory system in the ME universe that have nothing to do with hauling around tons of stuff in an invisible cart.

First there is nothing wrong in buying and selling.

How ever, buying is more in theme of ME serie than selling. I mean if Shepard finds some new technology, it would make sense to buy it. How ever, Shepards selling something doesn't make much sense, because only reason to sell is to get more money. So, assumption is that Shepard doesn't have money, what if Shepard has?

As for STEALING, you steal money or "items", what's the different, it's still stealing, so don't be hypocrite.

Induvidual item based inventory system only exist because every items is handled in induvidual base. That's not what happens in ME2 and ME3. There is no induvidual item handling, just technology based items, like blue-prints of tehnology or reverse engineered the technology. When you know how some "item" is build, because you done the research, then all you squad members has the tehnology. They don't handle induvidualy items at all. Every different "item" exist in game just one time. So, this isn't just about items, but hole base consept how customation is handeled is different. So, ME2 and ME3 customation is based more in consept, if you know the technology, then you have it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 juillet 2011 - 09:13 .

[Mister Mida]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Confirmed not to return by Jesse Houston in a live stream not too long ago.

Thank you very much!

Chris Priestly wrote...
Keep in mind that nothing "quoted" is 100%
guaranteed. We are still developing the game and features change, we
adapt, refine and improve. Just because you think it is there now based
off an old interview (or even a new one) that doesn't mean it will or
will not be in the game.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Do you have any idea how epicly ironic it is that you just accused someone else of hyperbole?  Especially given the sentence that preceeded it?

I'll help you out.  Please link us to your survey of every gamer on the planet that conclusively shows that the "Majority" feels as you claim.

You very often make grandiose claims that are clearly wrong,  or come up with blown out of proportion hyperbole in an attempt to "Defend" Bioware from all criticism.

Case in point,  ME2's AI was mindnumbingly bad,  even by 1990's standards.  "Go to this point,  stand there,  and repeat actions endlessly" weren't acceptable by the end of the 90's.  Here you are claiming it wasn't horrible.  It's seriously not much better than playing Area 51.

I'll head off the response now by reiterating,  sites have already been shown to review publishers,  not games.  DA2 showed that pretty clearly.

The most ironic part of all is,  the people criticising Bioware are trying to help,  and your blind defense doesn't.

So a question of blind fanboyism vs. blind hatred? You yourself have been accused of these claims in the past, and with very good reason.

[Il Divo]

Lumikki wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Just because Mass Effect isn't a traditional RPG it can't have a traditional inventory system? That doesn't make sense to me at all.

I ques that does require explaining.

How much focus in normal RPG has in looting items, getting better and better items as heavy progression items and characters. This takes allmost half the gameplay in normal RPG. You follow the story and do combat, but same time you also gather loot all the time. Then because you get so many items you need to micro-manage those items a lot in inventory.

ME serie how ever, is a lot more cinematic, like interactive movie, faster and action based impressions. Where it's focus is more in dialog based story play and combat, it's a lot more 3D impression. Now adding normal RPG inventory, it cause a lot more items, because every item is induvidual and SLOW micro-management of items. Everytime you have to manage items, it breaks the 3D movie like gameplay impression. That's just wrong focus for ME serie, that's not what ME serie is. Even ME story has no heavy progression, because Shepard starts as elite soldier.

Point been everyting what normal slow induvidual item based inventory does, is pretty much wrong for ME serie. Because it would change the ME more to normal SLOW RPG and break the cinematic impression all the time. Only good thing what it does related ME serie is the customation part and that can be done without normal induvidual item based RPG inventory.

That is what ME3 is trying to do, ME2 inventory with better customation and choises. This means focus is in customation, not in items, looting or micro-management it self. Because this heavy looting, finding better items to upgrade and then micro-manage them in big inventory, does not improve ME serie as game.

I'm saving this post in its entirety. I think it captures the huge problem Mass Effect's inventory has, especially in comparison to past Bioware efforts. (Imo), the style of Mass Effect's story does not make it conducive towards large, excessive inventories. Even more than the inventory system itself (which was bad), a good inventory system still might have felt awkward in the Mass Effect setting.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 juillet 2011 - 10:27 .

[xSTONEYx187x]

Also, in this video, Casey officially say's "no multi-player in ME3" because they "didn't want to compromise the single player experience".

I'm delighted to be proven wrong, I though it would end up in it eventually.

[Il Divo]

Phaedon wrote...

Like Deus Ex with the very limited selection in armoury and the even more limited inventory? No, thanks, I'll pass.

Different things work for different games. And please, let's not act as if the gameplay was horrible in either of the games, the majority either liked it or considered it's flaws compensated by the story. Hyperboles really don't help.

Actually, I'd argue that Deus Ex's inventory system worked very well given the style of the gameplay. Games like Origins and Elder Scrolls do feature limited inventory, but even weak characters find themselves able to carry a great number of items, which basically leads to trimming fat.

Deus Ex's inventory constantly forces the player to pick and choose what tools they want to get the job done, which makes inventory management a balancing act.

Modifié par Il Divo, 29 juillet 2011 - 10:33 .

[Blooddrunk1004]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...



Also, in this video, Casey officially say's "no multi-player in ME3" because they "didn't want to compromise the single player experience".

I'm delighted to be proven wrong, I though it would end up in it eventually.

And also confirmed that TIM is not working with Reapers.

[Il Divo]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...



Also, in this video, Casey officially say's "no multi-player in ME3" because they "didn't want to compromise the single player experience".

I'm delighted to be proven wrong, I though it would end up in it eventually.

Actually, he doesn't explicitly say that there's no multiplayer in ME3.

[Varen Spectre]

Lumikki wrote...

First there is nothing wrong in buying and selling.

How ever, buying is more in theme of ME serie than selling. I mean if Shepard finds some new technology, it would make sense to buy it. How ever, Shepards selling something doesn't make much sense, because only reason to sell is to get more money. So, assumption is that Shepard doesn't have money, what if Shepard has?

As for STEALING, you steal money or "items", what's the different, it's still stealing, so don't be hypocrite.

Well, we don't know if Shepard will or will not have enough credits to buy a particular or better said every technology the player would want him (her) to buy. That's true. However, I guess that some people asking the questions about "the option to sell things in order to earn more credits" have been asking this in conjunction with presumption that Mass Effect 3 will use the same or similar system as Mass Effect 2 had (which already doesn't seem to be completely true).

So the question should be more like:
If the game will have situations in which player has the option to buy new upgrades (technology, mods, etc.) but his (her) Shepard will not have enough credits to buy the desired upgrade (as was the case in Mass Effect 2 many times), wouldn't it be better if the game (ME 3) provided the player with option to sell the upgrades he (she) already possess? 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 29 juillet 2011 - 12:20 .