5257 réponses à ce sujet

[spinachdiaper]

i would suggest that the next game doesn't turn into ME4: Hawk's Revenge and clone a similar character and storyline path to what has been done already, but it's almost assured that the next ME will be centered around another typical human soldier in the Alliance and He/She will be yet another N7 and will likely be given a top secret ship and possibly get a to be Specter

[Samuel Beckenbach]

but if bioware does continue the series i wouldnt mind seeing a very streamlined cinematic dark tale of crime in the universe as it is talked about rampantly in the trilogy but never actually seen. play as a character(human) thats maybe thrust into a life of crime because of terrible event in his/her life. have the option to climb the ranks of a crime regime or have a paragon option to bring down a crime regime or something. i think there is a lot of great possibilities with that approach and would love to see the dark side of the mass effect universe. oh and hire some real writers for this one like actual movie script writers so they dont ruin the entire game in the last ten minutes hehehe

[laudable11]

Some of the SMGs in Mass Effect have pistol grips on them. It would be cool if the grips were used instead of holding the SMGs like they were handguns.

[Dormin]

The game to end with consequence and not another meaningless decision.

also proper exploration like the first game, and a smaller scale story.

[Metallica93]

Wow, haven't posted on here in a while O_o What I would like:

1) For EA to keep their greedy hands away from the development process lest we have another Battlefield 4 (enjoy the lawsuits, f***ers!).

2) For the game to have a combat system similar to the 2nd and 3rd game, but character development and settings on par with the first game.

I mean, the only things that the first Mass Effect needs to be the greatest game I have ever played are a less clunky combat system and non-repetitive side missions and locations. Hell, scratch Mass-Effect-4-that-isn't-actually-Mass-Effect-4 altogether and just give me a revamped ME1!!!

EDIT: "Apparently, the game won't involve Commander Shepard and shouldn't be considered "Mass Effect 4".

Modifié par Metallica93, 23 décembre 2013 - 09:39 .

[Grizzly46]

Metallica93 wrote...

Wow, haven't posted on here in a while O_o What I would like:

1) For EA to keep their greedy hands away from the development process lest we have another Battlefield 4 (enjoy the lawsuits, f***ers!).

2) For the game to have a combat system similar to the 2nd and 3rd game, but character development and settings on par with the first game.

I mean, the only things that the first Mass Effect needs to be the greatest game I have ever played are a less clunky combat system and non-repetitive side missions and locations. Hell, scratch Mass-Effect-4-that-isn't-actually-Mass-Effect-4 altogether and just give me a revamped ME1!!!

EDIT: "Apparently, the game won't involve Commander Shepard and shouldn't be considered "Mass Effect 4".

My opinion exactly. The combat system that was used in ME3 was great (apart from that the same key was used for both jumping and taking cover, accidentally causing some very idiotic moves), and if that could be transferred back to ME1 that would be great.

[Metallica93]

Grizzly46 wrote...My opinion exactly. The combat system that was used in ME3 was great (apart from that the same key was used for both jumping and taking cover, accidentally causing some very idiotic moves), and if that could be transferred back to ME1 that would be great.

I think you mean the storm (why not just 'sprint'?) button, not jumping. Sadly, there was no jumping in any ME game, if memory serves correctly. But removing the ability to crouch? Man, that pissed me off. I am the crouch king and to see it gone in the two games with improved combat was facepalm inducing.

Another thing that bugged me about ME1 was the combat menu that paused the game. I only really used it in ME1 because I started using the 1-8 keys for abilities and z/x/c/v for squad commands, but I didn't like the fact that it paused the game. It was a very neat feature, but you could literally do a 180 as if you had stopped time.

Make it so you can still give orders, but just allow us to do it via pointing our mouse/aiming with a joystick like a ton of other games.

Modifié par Metallica93, 24 décembre 2013 - 01:55 .

[Possessed Turian]

Crouching does need to come back, but bioware was trying to appeal to the less professional players that play modern warfare. Those guys don't like us crouched cause we kick but. I crouched everywhere, gives better accuracy. I liked the sniper rifle sway it made it hard to nail a Geth on Novaria when you hopped out of the mako to have a bit more fun. You want more accuracy you upped your skill

[Metallica93]

My God, the scope sway when you first start out is just... O_o It's a good thing I read online to save up one million (dollars?) as quickly as possible for the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. gear. A sniper rifle with next to no sway was such a relief. This time around I'm thinking of maxing out my pistol attributes before picking another weapon, lol. Second playthrough: do everything different. Everything

[TheSeventhJedi]

Dormin wrote...

The game to end with consequence and not another meaningless decision.

also proper exploration like the first game, and a smaller scale story.

Hear hear!
Personally, if Casey Hudson resigned and promised not to touch this game, I would consider allowing myself hope for the future of the franchise.  

[mhmbaSR1]

sorry these are random thoughts not really organized...

I would like to see exploration similar to what was in ME1, not exactly like it though. the planets were pretty much the same and you did pretty much the same thing but I really liked the idea of going to a planet that had nothing to do with the main mission to mine, explore, or do a side mission. this also means I want something like the mako back! what would also be nice is something where you land in a city but one of the main missions takes you out into the wild (that you can explore before and after mission) so that the main game integrates the planet as well as the city.

I want a lot more to explore in cities. with this being next gen you could expand a lot on the amount of a city that you would be able to explore

i dont really want the next mass effect to be 'open-world' per se, i just want there to be more to explore since its a next gen game

I prefer the way npc-protagonist interaction was in ME1 + ME2, where you go talk to them, learn something, and have to continue the conversation later if you want to know more. (my favorite example is wrex in ME1) sadly I think this disappeared in ME3 or was there to a lesser extent

I want to be able to control my character more, basically through his/her interactions. in ME1 there was only the illusion of choice (at least it was there) but you still got to make major plot decisions. in ME3 there was no choice whatsoever. again you got to make major plot decisions that impacted the story but it was ruined by what I call auto-dialogue (which I will explain later). my favorite was ME2's system. I don't think it was really any different but a large number of major missions gave the player several instances where they could make decisions that helped to form their character. there was still mandatory dialogue but I cant remember the number of character/loyalty missions in ME2 that gave you a choice, making it the best of the three for role-playing in conversation/decisions/interactions

ahh yes auto-dialogue. im not sure what other people mean by this but what I mean is... 1) the stupid conversations that replaced character interaction/investigation in ME3. why did you replace my conversation with something that I just walk into?! I cant choose anything my shepard says and its a slap in the face since it replaced a system where you interact with your teammate or comment on their story. 2) actually being in a main plot conversation and not being able to choose what you say. my favorite (sarcasm), I wont explain further since I think this is what everybody else means...."that's for Thane you son of a b*tch" ......no offense to thane that's just not my shepard

i want a sequel not a prequel!

there were a fair amount of choices in each game but all in all i think that the role-playing as far as the story goes could be improved not only because the choices you make are minimal, but because a good part of the time they don't have an impact
Edit: in the sense that there was no impact that spanned the series. for instance saving/killing the council had no impact down the line, but I thought it was effective as a decision with regards to just ME1

i dont want to be stuck in one place like the citadel/omega, this should be a sci-fi space epic which means i want to be able to travel the galaxy

bring back the journal/codex from ME1+ME2, ME3's was terrible!

so sequel, more rpg, don't turn it into an adventure/action game with rpg elements (already happened?)...oh well I am more than a little apprehensive about this but im hoping for the best

Modifié par mhmbaSR1, 27 décembre 2013 - 01:50 .

[Invisible Man]

I think I've posted a few thoughts in this thread before, but it can't hurt to voice them here again.
first, I also would like to see more rpg elements (preferably more rpg than shooter IMHO).
second, I'd like the old hacking/bypassing mini-games back (as in me2's hacking & bypassing).
third, access to alien race PCs as well as our human choices in single player.
I'd also like it to be a sequel, not a prequel - nor a parallel storyline along side me1-3.
I would like the me4 story to continue off me3's savegames as the other mass effect titles have done.
I also think it would be nice if we could play as shep's son or daughter if we select the proper race based off of the savegame data. with a nice boost in our character's starting level if that shep had been fightning it out from me1-3. (just a nice little bit of extra for those of us who have played from beginning to end)

just my few cents, I could rant about what I'd like to see all night, and I still wouldn't get close to finishing my list. so i'll just cut it here. night folks.

Modifié par Invisible Man, 27 décembre 2013 - 03:55 .

[ubermensch007]

 "The Mass Effect universe is vast, and Casey and our teams have plans for another full game. “Where to go next?” with such a project has been a question a lot of us have been asking, and we’d all love to hear your ideas."

I think what would be interesting. What would possibly be the best direction for the next Mass Effect game to go in would be to expand on what we were given in the Mass Effect Trilogy. The player was given the choice by way of Paragon or Renegade decisions to  play the part of either Good Cop or Bad Cop. We were also permitted to establish Commander Shepard's Background and Reputation as either a War Hero, Ruthless, Survivor, Earthborn, Spacer, or Colonist.

By expand I mean this: The next Mass Effect game should offer the player 3 Protagonist to choose from instead of one. Your choice should be to either be:

An Adventuer: Malcom Reynolds style in Firefly. With a starship and crew, going about the galaxy doing odd jobs and such. And having an opportunity to become a part of something bigger than yourself.

Career Military: And for this protagonist his or her choice will be to either become a war hero or a warmonger.

Corporate Executive This one has alot of options for your protagonist.  Engage in corporate espionage,sabotage, hostile takeover. Become as powerful as The Illusive Man. 

Whoever our protagonist is in the next Mass Effect I think BioWare would benefit  from making this game and story more of a Character Study of the Protagonist as opposed to going the Savior God rout they chose with Commander Shepard. The primary theme of the next Mass Effect should be (As President Abraham Lincoln put it) this:

"If you want to test a person character, give them power."And having your allies and friends choosing to either side with and support your goals or attempt to sabotage your endeavors, could be very exciting and intriguing. 

I was watching Suits on USA on Demand earlier today and Ginna Torres character Jessica said something to Harvey that I won't soon forget:

"I don't want you on my side I want us on the same side." That right  there has the makings of a badass video game! I could so see Commander Shepard or this new protagonist in the next Mass Effect  say something like this.

[Invisible Man]

for the most part we've mentioned what we'd like to see in the next mass effect game. some of us have added what we don't want to see as well. think I have once or twice. there is one thing I've neglected to add (unless I'm mistaken). there is something I really wouldn't like to see in the next game. thermal clips, or t-clips as they've been used in me2 or 3. I hate to say it but I agree with conrad on this issue. if thermal clips weren't slowly depleted with each shot (or rapidly in some cases) that would be acceptable. instead a thermal clip could passively cool weapons, however, if a weapon does overheat you can let it cool manually, or you can inject the entire contents of a thermal clip into the cooling chamber to instantly cool the weapon down. then you need to replace the current thermal clip to continue firing because the clip is required to cool the weapon (oh, and you only get like 5 clips, not 5 for each weapon but 5 total, or something like that). thermal clips as they currently are seem to be quite moronic in this universe (the mass effect one) to me. it may be to late to alter thermal clips at this point in the development cycle (assuming they are to be used), or so I guess. so I also guess this is just thinking or dreaming out loud at this point.

[JonathonPR]

Invisible Man wrote...

for the most part we've mentioned what we'd like to see in the next mass effect game. some of us have added what we don't want to see as well. think I have once or twice. there is one thing I've neglected to add (unless I'm mistaken). there is something I really wouldn't like to see in the next game. thermal clips, or t-clips as they've been used in me2 or 3. I hate to say it but I agree with conrad on this issue. if thermal clips weren't slowly depleted with each shot (or rapidly in some cases) that would be acceptable. instead a thermal clip could passively cool weapons, however, if a weapon does overheat you can let it cool manually, or you can inject the entire contents of a thermal clip into the cooling chamber to instantly cool the weapon down. then you need to replace the current thermal clip to continue firing because the clip is required to cool the weapon (oh, and you only get like 5 clips, not 5 for each weapon but 5 total, or something like that). thermal clips as they currently are seem to be quite moronic in this universe (the mass effect one) to me. it may be to late to alter thermal clips at this point in the development cycle (assuming they are to be used), or so I guess. so I also guess this is just thinking or dreaming out loud at this point.

I agree. There are some mechanics that fit a setting and make it feel more real and emersive. If it is not perfect improve it rather than replace it. When I play a hard scifi space sim I have to see Neutonian physics. When I watch Pacific Rim I don't need to worry about how the ships hull and frame could not take the stress of being used like a bat, the structural requirments and power output for the jager to function, or the conflict with the cubed square law that prevents the kaiju from living out of the water. Those are not the rules of that universe and it is obvious from the start. 

[Invisible Man]

I haven't seen pacific rim yet. nor several other titles I've wanted to. I refuse to pay... what is it these days, $12 per person to watch a film one time, when I could buy & own it for $15-$25 after several months of waiting for it to go to dvd. just haven't gotten around to picking it up yet, and Netflix doesn't stream it. I tend to rant, sorry.

[Aethgeir]

JonathonPR wrote...

Invisible Man wrote...

for the most part we've mentioned what we'd like to see in the next mass effect game. some of us have added what we don't want to see as well. think I have once or twice. there is one thing I've neglected to add (unless I'm mistaken). there is something I really wouldn't like to see in the next game. thermal clips, or t-clips as they've been used in me2 or 3. I hate to say it but I agree with conrad on this issue. if thermal clips weren't slowly depleted with each shot (or rapidly in some cases) that would be acceptable. instead a thermal clip could passively cool weapons, however, if a weapon does overheat you can let it cool manually, or you can inject the entire contents of a thermal clip into the cooling chamber to instantly cool the weapon down. then you need to replace the current thermal clip to continue firing because the clip is required to cool the weapon (oh, and you only get like 5 clips, not 5 for each weapon but 5 total, or something like that). thermal clips as they currently are seem to be quite moronic in this universe (the mass effect one) to me. it may be to late to alter thermal clips at this point in the development cycle (assuming they are to be used), or so I guess. so I also guess this is just thinking or dreaming out loud at this point.

I agree. There are some mechanics that fit a setting and make it feel more real and emersive. If it is not perfect improve it rather than replace it. When I play a hard scifi space sim I have to see Neutonian physics. When I watch Pacific Rim I don't need to worry about how the ships hull and frame could not take the stress of being used like a bat, the structural requirments and power output for the jager to function, or the conflict with the cubed square law that prevents the kaiju from living out of the water. Those are not the rules of that universe and it is obvious from the start. 

Agreed, with both of you.

@Invisible Man, I remember when word of "thermal clips" got out before the release of ME2, someone actually developed a mod for ME1 exactly like the system you describe, with five interchangeable "heat sinks" that the player would rotate through to cope with their weapons' heat-load.

That said, I'm actually perfectly fine with the idea of "limited ammo" in a game/universe like Mass Effect.

The codex in ME1 describes "pellets" that are "shaved off" a single block that serves as the magazine.  So wouldn't this "block" be depleted over time? It also says that these "pellets" are "designed" to squash on impact, transferring the maximum amount of force to the target, rather than simply piercing right through the target.  Doesn't that contradict the first description of pellets simply shaved off a block?  And why would that even matter? If a target is wearing armour - as most seem to be in the game - wouldn't you WANT projectiles to pierce the target?

The idea is that even a "shaving, accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light" impacts with massive force. Now I'm no physicist, but wouldn't a larger "projectile", like an actual bullet "accelerated to a fraction of the speed of light" impact with even greater force? Why not simply have actual "ammo clips"? You could even have different types - say one for each weapon category (Pistols, Shotguns, etc.).  "Ammo boxes" like in ME3 (which were FAR too abundant, imo) might hold a whole selection, simply "topping off" whatever the player is carrying.  The guns would all still be "mass accelerators" or "rail guns" according to the lore. Overheating might simply be a problem for guns with extended magazines or high rates of fire, as it doesn't make sense to design a weapon that can exceed its own heat-load capacity.

"Ammo clips" would also be a good reason to bring back actual "ammo mods" rather than omni-tool "skills" that certain classes can arbitrarily apply to weapons.  Limiting what classes can use which ammo types never made any sense to me.  Also, bringing back "ammo mods" would mean more potential loot.  Which I consider a good thing!

Modifié par Aethgeir, 29 décembre 2013 - 06:29 .

[Invisible Man]

@Aethgeir
I can see what you mean, and it does make sense. though I do like how ammo is modded by omni-tools in me3, and it does make sense to me as well. as for the ammo block, the codex seems to say that an ammo block will last quite a long time, even in continuous fire. I can see both sides of the fence on this one, and inmost cases when the lore seems to have been well thought out I tend to follow it.
as for the actual rounds that are fired, size seems to affect kinetic force in reverse. so using larger rounds doesn't really mean all that much. shape does impact kinetic force though, it's sort of like what makes blitzkrieg tactics work, kinetic force. though I'm not really the right person to be explaining all this, not being a physicist myself. as for the squashing effect the rounds have, I don't know if I can explain this properly but i'll give it a go. in mass effect (and quite possibly in the real world) the rounds aren't necessarily required to punch through the armor to do their damage, as the weapons payload is the energy of the round in motion and not the round itself.

-edit
I was talking about railguns and mass drivers not standard firearms.

Modifié par Invisible Man, 29 décembre 2013 - 10:29 .

[mhmbaSR1]

ok so force = mass * acceleration so one would think that if you were able to get the greatest amount of mass possible accelerated to "a fraction the speed of light" then you would have the greatest force. while this is true, in the real world when things get closer to the speed of light they actually get harder and harder to accelerate (that's why the speed of light is the fastest anything can go in the universe) so accelerating one molecule to a great speed will require A LOT less energy than accelerating something that is even 5 times the mass. of course this shouldn't apply in the mass effect universe because if the guns are using mass accelerators (which uses eezo, where if you give it an electrical charge the mass gets smaller or bigger depending on the whether its negative/positive charge, which is the whole basis for being able to actually travel faster than the speed of light in MEU) so whats the problem?

the problem is that destroying something doesn't really depend on the force it depends on the energy. for instance all things have (don't remember the technical term) an energy-destroy level where if you were to transfer the right amount of energy to earth (or anything really on a macro non molecular level) it would simply implode and be done for
so kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2 so while increasing mass will help (especially if you don't have to worry about the speed of light / mass relation I talked about earlier via mass accelerators) it would be impractical to increase the mass and waste part of your ammo block when you could increase the velocity, this is because increasing the mass will increase it linearly while increasing the velocity will increase it quadratically (look at the graph of a line versus the graph of a parabola (on the interval 0 to infinity) you will see which one increases faster)

so I hope this helps, I am an undergrad student in physics

Edit: one of the reasons why I love mass effect is because they do their physics research!! of course its sci-fi so they screw up more than they get right but hey

Modifié par mhmbaSR1, 29 décembre 2013 - 01:49 .

[Invisible Man]

@mhmbaSR1
so being an undergrad in physics... how does my analysis shape up? I'd just like to know how far off the mark I might be.

[EliotNesss]

@mhmbaSR1:

Well; it shapes up fairly well. But keep in mind that this is sci-fi. Where one can speculate on theory (like your speed of light theory) without having to wade through burdens of proof. But the graduate perspective in theoretical Physics is vastly more expansive. It holds out to the possibility that SOL (interesting and ironic eh) may not be such an absolute. It holds out that the light you postulate about may be subject to even faster and undetected wavelengths of light emanating from unknown sources. Consider this. Total Darkness that light travels through (or with) may actually be much faster than your referenced light. For that matter, what we perceive as total Darkness may actually be the source light itself. Operating outside of any measurable parameters of modern or theoretical Physics.

I actually like the theoretical construct of Herbert's excellent Dune series. It postulated that the speed of thought was the fastest threshold of speed. And could actually warp the fabric of space, time, mass and force itself. Hence the wars for control over the "Spice" that could amplify & control pure thought to such levels. Essentially, if you just thought about a location in Dune; you could be instantaneously transported there. Sort of how the human brain works in real. We imagine being at mom's house and our brains takes us there visually & mentally. Then it figures out how to drag our much slower physical body mass along. It's possible that is how light works too. There could potentially be an infinite spectrum of light. All operating with/at different wavelengths and physical/mental properties.

Like you, I love how Mass Effect taps into this wider pool of possibilities. My advice to you as a promising undergrad. Keep your mind open to the possibility that Einstein was just one very tiny piece of a much more vast reality.

[mhmbaSR1]

@Invisible Man

you pretty much got it right. the mass does not effect it in reverse, but the shape of the object would matter since something shaped like a needle would simply pass through without causing much damage (the energy the needle would lose if it were to pass through you at the speed of light would be a lot less than the energy it would lose if the needle were flattened to a coin and impacted flat, head/tails hitting your body straight on, not on edge, and thus more energy would be transferred to your body causing greater damage...course Im pretty sure you would be toast in either case since both would be going at the speed of light) and you are definitely right that the payload is the energy of the bullet not the bullet itself.

@EliotNesss

I am not going to dispute any of what you said (though I would like to, but I assuming your are a grad student and out of my league) but I have heard of some things similar to what you said in your first paragraph. I love all things physics and I like to entertain all sorts of possibilities, so I appreciate both the thoughts and the advice.  

and we are off topic as h*ll, so I am just going to say that the codex/journal system from ME1+ME2 made this conversation possible! (or at least easier) bring it back and get rid of the confusing one from ME3!

Modifié par mhmbaSR1, 29 décembre 2013 - 09:29 .

[Invisible Man]

@mhmbasr1
thanx for clearing that up. though I think I said size seems to (from my own observations) effect, not that it actually does, I was just guessing. but, it's nice to know I had that wrong anyway.

---edit
I also said size & not mass. because they don't mean the same thing as far as I know. but, I admit my knowledge of such things is fairly limited.

Modifié par Invisible Man, 29 décembre 2013 - 10:02 .

[Aethgeir]

mhmbaSR1 wrote...

ok so force = mass * acceleration so one would think that if you were able to get the greatest amount of mass possible accelerated to "a fraction the speed of light" then you would have the greatest force. while this is true, in the real world when things get closer to the speed of light they actually get harder and harder to accelerate (that's why the speed of light is the fastest anything can go in the universe) so accelerating one molecule to a great speed will require A LOT less energy than accelerating something that is even 5 times the mass. of course this shouldn't apply in the mass effect universe because if the guns are using mass accelerators (which uses eezo, where if you give it an electrical charge the mass gets smaller or bigger depending on the whether its negative/positive charge, which is the whole basis for being able to actually travel faster than the speed of light in MEU) so whats the problem?

the problem is that destroying something doesn't really depend on the force it depends on the energy. for instance all things have (don't remember the technical term) an energy-destroy level where if you were to transfer the right amount of energy to earth (or anything really on a macro non molecular level) it would simply implode and be done for
so kinetic energy = 1/2 * mass * velocity^2 so while increasing mass will help (especially if you don't have to worry about the speed of light / mass relation I talked about earlier via mass accelerators) it would be impractical to increase the mass and waste part of your ammo block when you could increase the velocity, this is because increasing the mass will increase it linearly while increasing the velocity will increase it quadratically (look at the graph of a line versus the graph of a parabola (on the interval 0 to infinity) you will see which one increases faster)

so I hope this helps, I am an undergrad student in physics

Edit: one of the reasons why I love mass effect is because they do their physics research!! of course its sci-fi so they screw up more than they get right but hey

Thanks! Yes, that does help!  The projectile only carries as much destructive energy as actually transferred to it during acceleration, regardless of whether or not you reduce its mass to increase its acceleration - makes sense.

So how about this then: Sink the excess heat in the projectile itself (or the subsequent one, if that's not practical); depending on how much heat we're talking about here, that might even reduce the projectile to plasma - Plasma Accelerators! Now we're talking!

Regardless, I was only speaking from the perspective of game design.  As I said, I'm not much of physics buff, and while I love the fact that Mass Effect is grounded in hard science, I don't really care what their explanation for "limited ammo" is, as long as they have one.

Purely as game-play dynamic though, I have no problem with limiting "shots per reload" somehow.  The whole reason they do it, is to differentiate the available weapons in the game, allowing them to add more.  All you have to do is compare the number of weapons in ME1 (dozens of versions of the same four weapons) to the number in ME3 (dozens of different weapons fitting into five different categories).  More weapons encourages players to experiment with different load-outs and play-styles - and that's a good thing.  All good games give more to the player.

[Aethgeir]

Invisible Man wrote...

@Aethgeir
I can see what you mean, and it does make sense. though I do like how ammo is modded by omni-tools in me3, and it does make sense to me as well.

Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with using omni-tools to "mod ammo", instead of actual ammo-mods. What doesn't make sense to me - either in the game universe, or from a game design perspective - is restricting which "classes" can have what ammo types, powers, etc.

This goes back to a discussion I was having only a page or two back: The only reason to have different "classes" in a game at all, is if they actually run on different dynamics.  The "classes" of Mass Effect, are all basically the same, just "limited" in what "powers" they can develop.  Why shouldn't players be able to just build any character - with any powers - they want, within the confines of the experience they've earned?

Part of what I suggested earlier was that all "tech powers" (which in this case would include "ammo powers"), should be "omni-tool applications" - actual software/gear that characters can buy, sell, upgrade and "swap in and out" of omni-tools and combat-drone "pets". This would give players who chose to develop Omni-Tool or Combat-Drone "skills", the added dynamic of being more versatile than players who favored the benefits of other dynamics like the added power of biotics or the simplicity of weapon and armor.

Limiting what characters/classes can do, causes players to try FEWER things - Bad game design!
Limiting what weapons, gear and skills can do, encourages players to collect and try MORE things - Good game design!

Modifié par Aethgeir, 30 décembre 2013 - 06:40 .