208 réponses à ce sujet

[Sable Rhapsody]

I'd like roleplaying control of the protagonist back, please. What irritated me the most was how little control I had over what Shepard said, did, and believed in ME3. Especially Renegade Shep, who was pretty much defanged.

You CAN have a more established character and backstory without railroading the player into a particular kind of character. Hawke in DA2 has established character elements, yes. But I played one who was a ruthless maleficar dedicated to mage freedom, and another who was a snarky and easy-going warrior with a surprising sense of moral responsibility. It IS possible to give both the writers some more concrete backstory and plot markers to work with while also giving the player room to roleplay.

[Dominus]

Moar RPG.

Dialogue is something that should probably be tackled sooner rather than later. That sort of thing depends from scene to scene in something as cinematic as Mass Effect, but...

2 options, and the scarcely found Investigation wasn't quite enough.

Though frankly, the thing I think needs to be hit first and foremost is quest quality, particularly side missions. ME3 certainly had its improvements, but I know the BioWare team is capable of something more than what was offered. Not even necessarily from a gameplay point of view, but trying to provide more creative and original quest ideas is what I'd like to see. Arcanum and PS:T come to mind as good examples.

Exploration is probably something worth at least venturing towards. It feels like the team danced around the idea with Hammerhead, but decided to focus on other things for ME3. Most of the ME3 combat is solid as a rock, so I've little complaint there. You're better off asking other fans on their opinions on that.

Anyways, yesh gimme dat arr pee gee.

[Display Name Owner]

Well, the stuff mentioned in the OP isn't really 'RPG' stuff per se. It's more to do with customisation, which I think ME3 did best out of the 3 games. ME1 was way too fiddly, ME2 was way too sparse. In 3, every weapon felt different, and the mods made a noticeable difference without being too numerous to deal with, like in 1. I agree that having ammo types be a mod rather than a power might have been a good way to go.

In regards to RPG elements, I suppose the main thing would be increasing the customisation of how you play your character. The thing is, Shepard was never meant to be fully malleable - he/she was always a somewhat established character, who we could customise in certain ways. It's not a bad formula, but having even greater control over what our character says and does wouldn't go amiss. I think we did lose a bit of that in ME3, the game where we should have had it the most, since it wasn't going to lead into a direct sequel like 1 & 2.

[Nerevar-as]

ioannisdenton wrote...

Adept in Me2 is a lot more stratigically.
In me3 it literraly was a SPAM FEST. bring Liara and spam pulls singlarities and warps  at rediculous cooldowns.
Equip the weakest weapon cause you do not need it.
Me3 adept bore me to death. In me2 you had to plan on Who to attack biotically.
In Me3 enemies NOS SHIEDS and No barriers.
Damn  just bythinking of it i am so pissed off right now.
Whose idea was the NO shields thing?? Adept in Me3 was a boring piece of cake spamfest. There goes the anti-soldier anti-mainstream anti-CoD class.
somehow Adept in Me3 is way more spammier than soldier with adrenaline rush in Me2.

What strategy? No power other than Warp was useful until you dropped enemy defenses. By that time 95% of the enemies are as good as dead without bothering to waste a cooldown before Warping the next enemy defenses. Only time I bothered using other power against mooks was against husks.

[DrGunjah]

MrFob wrote...
To be fair, that was only the case on the two highest difficulty levels and on those, it's meant to be hard (I personally would have gone for tougher low level enemies without protection as well but still, it's called insanity after all). I thought the game was balanced really nicely on veteran.

They should rather improve enemy AI then to make the game harder (and while they're at it, squad AI too).
For example, why don't most enemies stay behind cover when nearly dead and wait for their shields to recover? Phantom in ME3 already kind of does this. It would force you to change your tactics, leave cover to rush them or position your squad mates accordingly. That would make the game much harder than having stupid enemies with additional defense layers(/sprinkles ). Or what about enemies that look like they're trying to rush you but then suddenly stop when they're directly in front of your cover so you can easily kill them (shotgun blue suns guys I'm looking at you)
Stupid enemies are a RPG element I will never miss in any game.

[DrGunjah]

Nerevar-as wrote...
What strategy? No power other than Warp was useful until you dropped enemy defenses. By that time 95% of the enemies are as good as dead without bothering to waste a cooldown before Warping the next enemy defenses. Only time I bothered using other power against mooks was against husks.

exactly

[Neizd]

Yes. I want to have role playing in a role playing game. Skills and exp system isn't important for me...just give me option to role-play my Shepard. As the game is now I don't even consider it cRPG...only Action Shooter.

[sharkboy421]

Nerevar-as wrote...
What strategy? No power other than Warp was useful until you dropped enemy defenses. By that time 95% of the enemies are as good as dead without bothering to waste a cooldown before Warping the next enemy defenses. Only time I bothered using other power against mooks was against husks.

No way.  Singularity was great at locking guys in place even if they were shielded.  Even elites and bosses (dudes with 3 layers) could be held in place by it.  Use a singularity to lock down a group, then either shoot away their shields or have someone overload them, and finally follow it up with a warp bomb.  My adept run was one of the smoothest ME2 Insanity runs I've ever had.

[clarkusdarkus]

Well im all for it as isn't that why we level up in a game? i mean killing the same reapers at level 5 then again at level 60 is no different, the whole point of levelling up is to have someone of equal ability to use it again , aka boss's of sorts, or upgraded enemies....ME3 was ****** easy and actually mocks the RPG genre.

[Ieldra]

Leveling up and killing ever tougher bunches of enemies is not the essence of roleplaying, clarkusdarkus. I'd rather control what my protagonists say to other people and how I characterize them through what I make them say and do.

[N7KnightSabre]

I love RPGs and it sucks that they aren't as prominent in today's market as they used to be. I did like the combat in ME3 most but, I thought the inventory was weak. I couldn't change between two different assault rifles during battle (had to choose them before the level). I also thought that the items were somewhat limited because my second playthrough I had already bought everything so there was nothing in the kiosks anymore and that hindered the replay value a bit. I liked how the power evolutions were done in 3 as well though I wouldn't be against a few more powers being added to the roster. ME2 had hardly any power evolutions. I was mostly irked by the auto-dialog and I missed the comments made in battle by squadmates from ME2.

[The Spamming Troll]

WTF is all this praise of enemy protections all about?????????????

no. ****ing. way. no capable developer uses enemy protections as a way to make a game harder. theres a reason bioware uses it, its because they are LAZY and they apparently get away with it. theres a reason no other game features rock paper scissors combat. 13 spare ammo shots and enemy protections! the two easiest attempts at making a game more challenging. im not playing a horror survival game, im a god damned space marine.....with 13 bullets!!!?!??! and dont get me started on enemy protections. imagine in star wars was all about blowing off shields before you could ever use your lightsaber. thats the world i live in in ME2-land. might as well cut my dick off.

i also dont understand how ME1s combat dosnt get any praise. ME2/ME3 combat only requires 2 abilities, if not just one. lets compare the vanguard throughout the series. ME1 vanguards walk into a room, hit barrier, marksman, nemesis lift a group of enemies, bonus power singularity the other half of the room, get zapped by engineer and use adrenalin rush, pop another singularity, throw the charging krodan into a wall, collect loot. compare that to ME2 or ME3 where vangaurds barely do anything other then charge. atleast ME3 added nova.

to say ME2/ME3 combat is tactical always makes me ask why. i dont get it.  i can survive every single encounter in ME2 by hiding behind a waste high wall. it doesnt matter if i just took 4 rockets to the face, just count to 6 and bam, full health. here, atleast ME3 added the health bar segments, showing consequences for being to aggressive.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 12 novembre 2012 - 04:45 .

[clarkusdarkus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Leveling up and killing ever tougher bunches of enemies is not the essence of roleplaying, clarkusdarkus. I'd rather control what my protagonists say to other people and how I characterize them through what I make them say and do.

No but its a formula that's worked on many an RPG, even LOTSB had decent boss battles, i agree with interaction but to say thats the only thing that makes an RPG work is your opinion i dont agree with. Talking isn't what ,made ME1 a great RPG, it was being able to have full control over everything, squadmate's armor/weapon/items for the weapons etc etc.........and don't be condenscending with your tone either " is not the essence of roleplaying clarkusdarkus" like your he-man or something.

[ioannisdenton]

sharkboy421 wrote...

Nerevar-as wrote...
What strategy? No power other than Warp was useful until you dropped enemy defenses. By that time 95% of the enemies are as good as dead without bothering to waste a cooldown before Warping the next enemy defenses. Only time I bothered using other power against mooks was against husks.

No way.  Singularity was great at locking guys in place even if they were shielded.  Even elites and bosses (dudes with 3 layers) could be held in place by it.  Use a singularity to lock down a group, then either shoot away their shields or have someone overload them, and finally follow it up with a warp bomb.  My adept run was one of the smoothest ME2 Insanity runs I've ever had.

precisely. Once the shields went down you either warped OR or just pulled someone only to leave him flying while you warped or cast singularity on someone else. your teammates took care of the flying enemies. Master of the battlefield. I repeat in Me3 adept was a spammer . Equip a very light weapon and spam Pull and then throw. Warp was bad compared to throw lvl 6 with 2 throws evolution and reset cooldowns.
Boring and TOO easy.

[ioannisdenton]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

WTF is all this praise of enemy protections all about?????????????

no. ****ing. way. no capable developer uses enemy protections as a way to make a game harder. theres a reason bioware uses it, its because they are LAZY and they apparently get away with it. theres a reason no other game features rock paper scissors combat. 13 spare ammo shots and enemy protections! the two easiest attempts at making a game more challenging. im not playing a horror survival game, im a god damned space marine.....with 13 bullets!!!?!??! and dont get me started on enemy protections. imagine in star wars was all about blowing off shields before you could ever use your lightsaber. thats the world i live in in ME2-land. might as well cut my dick off.

i also dont understand how ME1s combat dosnt get any praise. ME2/ME3 combat only requires 2 abilities, if not just one. lets compare the vanguard throughout the series. ME1 vanguards walk into a room, hit barrier, marksman, nemesis lift a group of enemies, bonus power singularity the other half of the room, get zapped by engineer and use adrenalin rush, pop another singularity, throw the charging krodan into a wall, collect loot. compare that to ME2 or ME3 where vangaurds barely do anything other then charge. atleast ME3 added nova.

to say ME2/ME3 combat is tactical always makes me ask why. i dont get it.  i can survive every single encounter in ME2 by hiding behind a waste high wall. it doesnt matter if i just took 4 rockets to the face, just count to 6 and bam, full health. here, atleast ME3 added the health bar segments, showing consequences for being to aggressive.

Because Me3 removed all protections and the game was a breeze playing with someone like adept. Just spam any biotic ability.
The foundation of M.e's gameplay renders shields neceserry as i see it. Almost all powers are overpowered and too much crowd controll. Check Me3 and adept once again. No shields= ab****e dominance, 2 throws and 2 pulls wth almost zero cooldownds on totally unprotected enemies. In Me2 combat sure could be more dynamic as it was static enough (as you mentioned and you are right about that) but at least Submachineguns and pistols and assult rifles and shotguns and snipers rifles were different and not accessible to anyone. In me3 anyone can equip any type and practically there is no difference.
As for Me1 the combat despite it's clunkyness it was less about cover and more about shooting almost blindly, but the long cooldowns made up for it.

[DrGunjah]

ioannisdenton wrote...
Because Me3 removed all protections and the game was a breeze playing with someone like adept. Just spam any biotic ability.
The foundation of M.e's gameplay renders shields neceserry as i see it. Almost all powers are overpowered and too much crowd controll. Check Me3 and adept once again. No shields= ab****e dominance, 2 throws and 2 pulls wth almost zero cooldownds on totally unprotected enemies. In Me2 combat sure could be more dynamic as it was static enough (as you mentioned and you are right about that) but at least Submachineguns and pistols and assult rifles and shotguns and snipers rifles were different and not accessible to anyone. In me3 anyone can equip any type and practically there is no difference.

the issues in me3 are the ridiculously low cooldowns and power combos, not the lack of protection layers. Protection layers don't help when you can destroy even the best protected enemies with infinite warp->throw spamming.
Who even needs crowd control when you can make sh!t explode every 2 seconds?
In ME2 it's the other way around. Maybe singularity is an exception here. It actually crowd controls without ragdolling. But why should I bring a squad mate like (non loyal) jack with shockwave and pull? It's much more effective to bring someone with warp, overload or incinerate (or later reave). Why should an adept skill into pull, throw or shockwave on insanity?

[ioannisdenton]

DrGunjah wrote...

ioannisdenton wrote...
Because Me3 removed all protections and the game was a breeze playing with someone like adept. Just spam any biotic ability.
The foundation of M.e's gameplay renders shields neceserry as i see it. Almost all powers are overpowered and too much crowd controll. Check Me3 and adept once again. No shields= ab****e dominance, 2 throws and 2 pulls wth almost zero cooldownds on totally unprotected enemies. In Me2 combat sure could be more dynamic as it was static enough (as you mentioned and you are right about that) but at least Submachineguns and pistols and assult rifles and shotguns and snipers rifles were different and not accessible to anyone. In me3 anyone can equip any type and practically there is no difference.

the issues in me3 are the ridiculously low cooldowns and power combos, not the lack of protection layers. Protection layers don't help when you can destroy even the best protected enemies with infinite warp->throw spamming.
Who even needs crowd control when you can make sh!t explode every 2 seconds?
In ME2 it's the other way around. Maybe singularity is an exception here. It actually crowd controls without ragdolling. But why should I bring a squad mate like (non loyal) jack with shockwave and pull? It's much more effective to bring someone with warp, overload or incinerate (or later reave). Why should an adept skill into pull, throw or shockwave on insanity?

Jack in Me2 was very handy with warp ammo shotgun, pistol for armored scions and pull for general purpose.
Besides all bioware games are about choosing characters due to role playing criteria and not as much as abilites they offer. anything is viable. Once i completed a me2 playthrough (insanity only) only with Jacob and jack. 2  eviscerator shotguns and 2 pulls were more than great.
And yeah the redicusly short cooldowns eventually break this game and make it too much action KABOOM everywhere. This direction of mass effect was SO uneeded. who decided that this is was the right call anyway???

Modifié par ioannisdenton, 12 novembre 2012 - 06:18 .

[SpamBot2000]

If I ever choose to be a BioWare customer again, then absolutely.

[kyban]

xsdob wrote...

As stated earlier, I want rpg conversations, choices, and to some extent side quest brought back. I want everything else to stay gone.

I think many of us want this. Hopefully if we talk about it enough BioWare will hear us. Now if they take action, that's another story.

[kyban]

Comsky159 wrote...

I want more (or at least some) actual exploration back; try to recapture ME1's more expansive setting. Never cared much for stats etc though, ME3 hit the mark there for me.

I want exploration back too. I know lots of people complained that it was boring, and much of it was repeated and reused assets. (talking about the Mako parts)
But you know what, I don't care. It's the thought, the meaning behind being able to explore new worlds. You take that away and, in my opinion, much of the sense of wonder is gone.

[KrazyKiko]

I loved the following RPG-elements of ME1:

1.0) Inventory (its concept).
   .1) The 'implementation' of it, however, was poor. There are a lot of ways it could be improved to make it less of a headache.

2.0) Customization
   .1) ME1 I loved the most; ME2 as poor. ME3 was more of a mixed-bag for me. I love adjusting the ammo type in ME1; ammo "powers" was just plain goofy IMO.

3.0) Exploration
   .1) ME1 was the best...despite its clunky, over used design, it accomplished the feat of being larger, more open. Then again, the story demanded such since it was introducing a whole new world. I was disappointed not having the ability to drive the Mako (get stuck occasionally) around an alien planet and enjoy the design.

That said, I'm not sure if these are true RPG elements, but they are elements I'd like to see return in the series.

Modifié par KrazyKiko, 12 novembre 2012 - 07:24 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

More RPG elements is usually good IMO

[kyban]

sharkboy421 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

I also find that biotics and tech attacks are grossly overpowered in ME3, and combo explosions allow you to go entire levels just spamming power after power. Plus the weight system is a completely broken, horrid mess.

I completely agree with both of those points.  Biotics are especially powerful, but alot of that comes from having so many unprotected enemies.  Its just silly when I can have Liara solo missions for me.  (I mean I love that she can combo on her own, but the power is just too much.)

And I cannot even begin to describe how much I hate the weight system.  ME2 was fine with fixed cool downs.  But in 3, having +200% cooldown is far too good and having -200% is so bad if you have any desire to use powers at all.  I'd prefer a system where you had fixed cool downs and certain weight limit.  Could carry any weapon you liked, but could take so many.

I agree a lot with both of you guy's points.

Honestly, I never thought too much about the new weight system. Sure it gets annoying at points but I always sort of went with it. But now that you mention it, I think i really do prefer ME2's style.
I also wish I could carry a heavy weapon at all times like before. For that to be the case, the weight system would have to be either redone, or removed.

[Ry3 Sjursen]

DrGunjah wrote...

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)

This is what I hated about ME2 and ME3.  I have all sorts of armor in my armory, why can't the AI wear it?  I mean really?  It isn't that hard to change it, then have a background program updating there armor and such that they get.  

[kyban]

Killdren88 wrote...

Oh my god, yes! I'm sick of games conforming to to the larger audiences of FPS. Dragon Age :Origins was perfect for me. ME 1 also very good. BUT Why does seem around the sequel to Bioware games (DA 2 ME 2) we are no longer able to gear our party?! Why is that a recurring theme?! I like to gear my party, and spec them just the way I like them. Not to mention this growing trend of focusing on the action rather than the whole story. Now I don't want to point any fingers *Looks at Ea with quiet disdain* but Bioware needs to go back to their roots and make good RPGS again thats what made them successful. Not pandering to all the FPS jockys out there. Bioware was about focusing on games for a specific group of people, but sadly they are slowly being pushed to conform. Quite sad really.

Well said. I agree with everything, and this is what I want to see come back.

Hopefully if we keep harping the same key things we want, Bioware will listen.

Go back to your roots! bring back the RPG Bioware!!