208 réponses à ce sujet

[kyban]

For the next game in the series?

I know some people have expressed this, but I'm curious. What does the community here think? Where should Mass Effect grow as a genre?


Personally I want the older RPG elements to come back, and not have them become too mainstream them or oversimplified. 

For example, I liked managing my equipment in ME1 but you got so much junk that it was hard to keep track of it all. I liked what they did for ME3 with weapon mods, but i wanted it to be more fleshed out (2 mods and an ammo type is what I liked.).
I also wanted mods for equipment. In ME2 & 3, I like that certain armor has particular stats, but they were fixed. This is a major story and character driven game, people are going to care about the way they look. If we want to wear certain armor, we shouldn't be punished for wanting to wear + Biotic skill armor when we're a soldier, or engineer. We should be able to mod armor like we can our weapons.

I also Missed the expansive skill trees from ME1. I actually don't mind how big they were, but i can see why they watered it down. I would like to see something more in the middle. I liked how i could put points for my crew to make my squad more versatile, like giving Tali sabatage, and Garrus dampening, etc. (What ever happened to hacking and slicing? )


Baisically I want the game to go back to being more of an RPG.


Edit:
Really liking the discussions going on here. However I just wanted to try and clearify something.

Some people are getting the impression that I want the next game to be exactly like ME1. That's not what I'm getting at.
I'm not saying that the skills and balance was perfect in the first game. I'm saying I  miss having that ability in the game. I'm more than sure Bioware could  refine it and make better skill trees and item management.

Sure ME3 made some of that come back, but I want more choices and more a fleshed out system than 3 had. I miss it and I want the RPG side to have a bigger presence in the next game. After all, Biowre is an RPG game company.


Edit # 2:
I'm seeing a few common topics popping up, and I wanted to put them here on top.

It seems that we really miss and/or want a bigger presence of the following:

• Full wheel dialgues
• Exploration/immersion
• Stronger RPG elements (or more like what it was in the beginning)

Please feel free to debate, and agree or disagree with the 3 above bulleted points. All info is important.

The reason why I wanted to put up topic points, is because Bioware says they listen to us and they say they want to hear what we want in the next game. So, I think if we can try and focus on a few points that they will hear us out.
Keep it down to a few points, but keep talking about it. Keep bringing up what you want. Don't stop posting here and on other social networks. Because I am hopeful someone in Bioware will notice.

Modifié par kyban, 13 novembre 2012 - 02:09 .

[David7204]

The combat RPG elements in ME 3 were far, far better than ME 1.

The skill trees in ME 1 were lousy. First of all, they were very poorly balanced. Some skills were so close to useless that they were worthless (most of the tech skills), and some were so powerful that they made it easy to break the game (Immunity, electronics, some of the biotic skills.) 

Secondly, the mechanic of having to go halfway down one tree to unlock another is annoying and pointless. I hated having to have my squadmates invest in First Aid just so they could unlock electronics and get better shields.

Thirdly, having guns and armor that literally get 10x stronger throughout the game is horribly unrealistic. If people want realism and hard science in a story, that has a price. ME 2 and ME 3 do a much, much better job with this. Having weapons that get maybe twice as strong throughout the story is okay. Ten times as strong...not so much.

Forthly, many of the skills in ME 1 barely even counted as skills. The armor skill. You take 2% less damage per point. Wow, how exciting. The medicine skill. Medi-gel cools down slighty faster. Whoo-hoo. That's not being expansive. ME 3 does it right by integrating such bonuses into the other skills, and making each skill have a unique and observable consequence.

Modifié par David7204, 11 novembre 2012 - 11:25 .

[LucasShark]

Yes, Yes, a thousand times yes!

I am so SICK of everything in gaming getting pushed askide for "accessability", see the rise of modern military shooters, and Skyrim's awful combat balance and system.

[Peranor]

David7204 wrote...

The combat RPG elements in ME 3 were far, far better than ME 1. 

The skill trees in ME 1 were horrible. First of all, they were very poorly balanced. Some skills were so so close to useless that they were worthless (most of the tech skills), and some were so powerful that they made it easy to break the game (Immunity, electronics, some of the biotic skills.)  

Secondly, the mechanic of having to go halfway down one tree to unlock anther is annoying and pointless. I hated having to have my squadmates invest in First Aid just so they could unlock electronics and get better shields. 

Thirdly, having guns and armor that literally gets 10x stronger throughout the game is horribly unrealistic. If people want realism and hard science in a story, that has a price. ME 2 and ME 3 do a much, much better job with this. Having weapons that get maybe [/i]twice as strong throughout the story is okay. Ten times as strong...not so much.

Forthly, many of the skills in ME 1 barely even counted as skills. The armor skill. You take 2% less damage per point. Wow, how exciting. The medicine skill. Medi-gel cools down slighty faster. Whoo-hoo. That's not being expansive. ME 3 does it right by integrating such bonuses into the other skills, and making each skill has a unique and observable consequence. 

Good thing those points wasn't what he asked for then

[David7204]

Skyrim does have pretty awful combat balance...

[Tank207]

I think Mass Effect 3 did just fine as far as balancing out the combat and leveling system. The leveling system in 3 was the best in the entire trilogy.

Less auto dialogue would be nice though.

Modifié par Tank207, 11 novembre 2012 - 11:21 .

[LucasShark]

David7204 wrote...

Skyrim does have pretty awful combat balance...

I conducted an experiment recently in it to see just how far a heavy weapon could get me with no armour or clothing of any kind... the result: quite far.

[DrGunjah]

I have to entirely agree to David7204. I'm confused.
Only thing that I don't like that much is armor having "embedded" stats.
I prefer how ME1 handles armors. Mods for bonus stats while the armor only affects defensive stuff (except for the balance... Just saying "light colossus armor" ... WTF)

Modifié par DrGunjah, 11 novembre 2012 - 11:30 .

[mumba]

They should keep the combat as it is (Or go back to ME2 combat, which I prefer)
And definitely, definitely have a more RPG element in ME4, ME3 didn't feel like an RPG in-comparison to ME and ME2.

[LucasShark]

Mumba1511 wrote...

They should keep the combat as it is (Or go back to ME2 combat, which I prefer)
And definitely, definitely have a more RPG element in ME4, ME3 didn't feel like an RPG in-comparison to ME and ME2.

I was beginning to think I was alone in preferring ME2's combat.

[JaceBelerin]

Bring back inventory and loot. I like classic RPG style weapons with stats.

[David7204]

No. If you want the story to be more realistic and not less, that means no more carrying 80 guns and 50 suits of armor in your pocket.

[Peranor]

LucasShark wrote...

Mumba1511 wrote...

They should keep the combat as it is (Or go back to ME2 combat, which I prefer)
And definitely, definitely have a more RPG element in ME4, ME3 didn't feel like an RPG in-comparison to ME and ME2.

I was beginning to think I was alone in preferring ME2's combat.

And here I thought that the one and only thing that BSN would agree about regarding ME3 was that it's combat was superior to ME1 and 2.
Guess I was wrong 

[David7204]

That sounds tricky. You can't have the player's class affect the plot except in very, very, very, very, very tiny ways.

[LucasShark]

FemaleMageFan wrote...

I would like some class specific interactions. As an engineer i should be able to perform extra tasks rather than just combat drones and turrets. I should be able to apply my engineering knowledge to stuff

This is something I've been saying since ME1: why can't my character (an infiltrator), apparently a covert operative and expert on decripting and so forth, have specialized lines on the subject?  Why aren't people a bit wary of my character since he could effectively have been an assassin or sniper for the Alliance at some point?  Why does next to noone comment on the prowess of an Adept shepard?  Etc.

[LucasShark]

anorling wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Mumba1511 wrote...

They should keep the combat as it is (Or go back to ME2 combat, which I prefer)
And definitely, definitely have a more RPG element in ME4, ME3 didn't feel like an RPG in-comparison to ME and ME2.

I was beginning to think I was alone in preferring ME2's combat.

And here I thought that the one and only thing that BSN would agree about regarding ME3 was that it's combat was superior to ME1 and 2.
Guess I was wrong 

It depends on your criteria for evaluating:
- As a pure action game/shooter, ME3 is superior to MEs 1 or 2 int hat combat flows and there is less micro-managing
- As an RPG or action RPG, I'd put ME1 and 2 above 3, since in 3 most enemies have the same weakness: bullets, lots of bullets.  ME1 is effectively a pen and paper RPG which happens to use a shooter template for its invisable dice rolls and stats.

[David7204]

Because it would be annoying to have the character's personality based on his class.

Here's what would happen if BioWare did that. Soldier Shepard would be a dumb thug who likes to shoot stuff. Engineer Shepard would be a nerd who mumbles equations. Infiltrator Shepard would be sneaky and mysterious.

That's not fun. That's frustrating. What if I just want to play as a class because I think that class is enjoyable?

No, characterzation and combat class need to be seperate.

(Not only that, it would be very difficult to come up with lines for Vanguards, Adepts, and Sentinals. And content needs to be roughly equal across the classes.)

Modifié par David7204, 11 novembre 2012 - 11:52 .

[kyban]

David7204 wrote...

The combat RPG elements in ME 3 were far, far better than ME 1.

The skill trees in ME 1 were lousy. First of all, they were very poorly balanced. Some skills were so close to useless that they were worthless (most of the tech skills), and some were so powerful that they made it easy to break the game (Immunity, electronics, some of the biotic skills.) 

Secondly, the mechanic of having to go halfway down one tree to unlock another is annoying and pointless. I hated having to have my squadmates invest in First Aid just so they could unlock electronics and get better shields.

Thirdly, having guns and armor that literally get 10x stronger throughout the game is horribly unrealistic. If people want realism and hard science in a story, that has a price. ME 2 and ME 3 do a much, much better job with this. Having weapons that get maybe twice as strong throughout the story is okay. Ten times as strong...not so much.

Forthly, many of the skills in ME 1 barely even counted as skills. The armor skill. You take 2% less damage per point. Wow, how exciting. The medicine skill. Medi-gel cools down slighty faster. Whoo-hoo. That's not being expansive. ME 3 does it right by integrating such bonuses into the other skills, and making each skill have a unique and observable consequence.

I disagree with all of your points.

It sounds like you're more of a fast gameplay, and combat enthusiast. I'm more old school RPG. The old skills were not all that useless, they did help.
The strong points in ME1 were not so much its combat but its compelling story, characters and settings. I would like to see the RPG come back, and not be so much of a mainstream shooter. Don't we have Gears of War and other games for that?

[kyban]

LucasShark wrote...

Yes, Yes, a thousand times yes!

I am so SICK of everything in gaming getting pushed askide for "accessability", see the rise of modern military shooters, and Skyrim's awful combat balance and system.

Thank you I agree with you fully.

[Fifmut]

kyban wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The combat RPG elements in ME 3 were far, far better than ME 1.

The skill trees in ME 1 were lousy. First of all, they were very poorly balanced. Some skills were so close to useless that they were worthless (most of the tech skills), and some were so powerful that they made it easy to break the game (Immunity, electronics, some of the biotic skills.) 

Secondly, the mechanic of having to go halfway down one tree to unlock another is annoying and pointless. I hated having to have my squadmates invest in First Aid just so they could unlock electronics and get better shields.

Thirdly, having guns and armor that literally get 10x stronger throughout the game is horribly unrealistic. If people want realism and hard science in a story, that has a price. ME 2 and ME 3 do a much, much better job with this. Having weapons that get maybe twice as strong throughout the story is okay. Ten times as strong...not so much.

Forthly, many of the skills in ME 1 barely even counted as skills. The armor skill. You take 2% less damage per point. Wow, how exciting. The medicine skill. Medi-gel cools down slighty faster. Whoo-hoo. That's not being expansive. ME 3 does it right by integrating such bonuses into the other skills, and making each skill have a unique and observable consequence.

I disagree with all of your points.

It sounds like you're more of a fast gameplay, and combat enthusiast. I'm more old school RPG. The old skills were not all that useless, they did help.
The strong points in ME1 were not so much its combat but its compelling story, characters and settings. I would like to see the RPG come back, and not be so much of a mainstream shooter. Don't we have Gears of War and other games for that?

[kyban]

anorling wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The combat RPG elements in ME 3 were far, far better than ME 1. 

The skill trees in ME 1 were horrible. First of all, they were very poorly balanced. Some skills were so so close to useless that they were worthless (most of the tech skills), and some were so powerful that they made it easy to break the game (Immunity, electronics, some of the biotic skills.)  

Secondly, the mechanic of having to go halfway down one tree to unlock anther is annoying and pointless. I hated having to have my squadmates invest in First Aid just so they could unlock electronics and get better shields. 

Thirdly, having guns and armor that literally gets 10x stronger throughout the game is horribly unrealistic. If people want realism and hard science in a story, that has a price. ME 2 and ME 3 do a much, much better job with this. Having weapons that get maybe [/i]twice as strong throughout the story is okay. Ten times as strong...not so much.

Forthly, many of the skills in ME 1 barely even counted as skills. The armor skill. You take 2% less damage per point. Wow, how exciting. The medicine skill. Medi-gel cools down slighty faster. Whoo-hoo. That's not being expansive. ME 3 does it right by integrating such bonuses into the other skills, and making each skill has a unique and observable consequence. 

Good thing those points wasn't what he asked for then

Yeah well, It's his opinion and he's more than welcome to state his mind. I think his response comes from the side of a more action oriented gamer, but that's just me.

[David7204]

The first, second, and forth points are opinions. But the third isn't. It's fact. Having guns get 10x stronger is not realistic.

[DrGunjah]

LucasShark wrote...
I was beginning to think I was alone in preferring ME2's combat.

what exactly was better in ME2 combat?
Imho it felt... unfinished. Especially only having 2 (later 3) skills per squadmate (half of them being useless on insanity) felt odd after playing ME1.