340 réponses à ce sujet

[NINJ4 R4BBID]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Like I said, take Shepard to lvl 30 without spending a single stat point and see how well that works out. Even without all the other things you mentioned, combat alone should make it clear this is still an rpg.

Given that stat points only apply to optional powers now instead of core aspects of character development, I don't see why that would be a problem.

Combat may be a little less interesting without using special abilities, but seeing as you no longer spend points to:
- increase accuracy or damage,
- increase shield or health levels,
- improve the kinds of weapons or armor you equip,
- unlock more conversation options,
- have access to locked containers, terminals, and the loot and exp that comes with it,

it doesn't sound undoable to me.

Bolded is outright wrong for Soldier class and maybe even for other classes (get your facts straight)... as for armor and weapons we will have research now (more realistic IMO then spending points on character sheet for those things)...

p.s. Loved ME and will love ME2... i have faith in the fact that BioWare will deliver an EPIC game!  (to all non believers)

Modifié par NINJ4 R4BBID, 18 janvier 2010 - 05:38 .

[Yojimboreo]

What confounds me, and it's disappointing because you would think Bioware fans of all people would realize this, is that not many on the forums focuses on the one thing Bioware talks about minimally, but is also the backbone of their entire development history, and that's the story and its mechanics.  I'm not talking just about the characters you get to have sex with, but I'm talking the narrative, the careful pacing, characters' backgrounds and motivations, those little Shepard moments, your Shepard's moments -- these are the things that make Bioware games as great as they have always been.

Really think about it. How many things in the first game on the side of gameplay mechanics did you initially deride?  I know when I first played Mass Effect on the 360 I thought the combat was a complete mess (thought it was much better on the PC).  I hated the inventory because I would have to spend an excess of ten minutes just cleaning it all out, and making sure each and every character couldn't use this item or that or if it was better than the one they had etc.  I had very little time to obsess over matching armor like a lot of people talk about because I spent so much time just cleaning out all the junk.

But I forgave all of this because the story was awesome.  Not only that, but I had made my own Shepard in just the right image, and I loved watching doing all the interactions I dictated.  I loved watching moments like me facing off against an angry Wrex on the beach, or giving a cool nod of appreciation when Garrus makes that pin point shot in the med clinic, or when my Shepard just straight out punches Saren in the face.  Combat wasn't that great, but what made combat better and tolerable was the motivations behind you.  You knew why you were shooting these synthetic cultists because you played through your own story and in a way helped craft it.

What I am saying is that we're very critical of the upcoming gameplay changes because that is all we see.  How often have we seen an entire scene of discussion from beginning to end?  How many times have we seen actual in-game character interactions?  Not much. Very, very little in fact.  And that's the key to Bioware's success -- all the storytelling and characters.  I mean, just seeing that little three seconds of Subject Zero fighting with Miranda made me grin wide.  It's one of the few times we've seen the new characters working in tandem.  My imagination goes wild with what a Thane and Grunt conversation might be, and how my Shepard might react to it.

It seems to me Bioware is stripping things to basics.  It's not because they want a bigger audience, because it's actually already huge, these forums are not a representation of all of  Mass Effect and Bioware's fans.  Instead, they're stripping combat and exploration to no nonsense mechanics that are fairly well trusted in games today because the story is what matters most to them, not the rules.  They want you have fun in between the stories, not frustrated, filled with tedium, or straight out bored.  Best way to do that is to look at their contemporaries that have been able to fill the masses with entertainment.  Epic Games, Infinity Ward, Rockstar, Ubisoft Montreal, Naughty Dog, hate 'em or love 'em they've been able to make gamers happy.  Bioware being inspired by them in the combat and customization department doesn't hurt me none.

Modifié par Yojimboreo, 18 janvier 2010 - 06:31 .

[ammit23]

I agree with most of what you say, @Yojimboreo. But how is BW supposed to advertise the gameplay elements w/o giving too much away, or at all in a 30-sec ad? I for one am open minded about the reload, new skill pt distribution, etc. Gotta wait 'till I see the final product in its entirety. Put no pre-release ads will ever dig into the heart of the story line. And the Sci vs Fi promos are the closest I''ve ever seen for ads that at least discuss, much less show a fraction of the story play.

[hawat333]

Funny. Starts like this

pejot82 wrote...

 No, I'm not going to make any sort of speculation about a game I haven't played yet.

followed by a wall of speculation about the game you haven't played yet.

[Yojimboreo]

ammit23 wrote...

I agree with most of what you say, @Yojimboreo. But how is BW supposed to advertise the gameplay elements w/o giving too much away, or at all in a 30-sec ad? I for one am open minded about the reload, new skill pt distribution, etc. Gotta wait 'till I see the final product in its entirety. Put no pre-release ads will ever dig into the heart of the story line. And the Sci vs Fi promos are the closest I''ve ever seen for ads that at least discuss, much less show a fraction of the story play.

Well, I don't have any problem with them not showing the story.  I think that's actually a good thing, too many films and games nowadays feel it neccessary to expose their whole narrative in one trailer.  That leaves no surprises for the gamer.  Bioware is actually even better in my opinion because there have been moments, for the sake of secrecy in the story of Mass Effect 2, where some of the development team have just straight out lied.  Even though I'm a bit of a spoiler junkie -- wanting to know everything and anything I can about one given thing beforehand -- I know that the best entertainment and stories are ones you know nothing about going into.

Bioware have been intelligently focusing on the gameplay aspects of it all.  The combat, exploring, and all that stuff.  That's probably for the better, but as a result I think it has risen an unnecessary fervency in the most vocal of fans, and I don't think anything they've revealed thus far is that deserving of antagonism. 

Modifié par Yojimboreo, 18 janvier 2010 - 06:44 .

[ammit23]

Yojimboreo wrote...
Well, I don't have any problem with them not showing the story.  I think that's actually a good thing, too many films and games nowadays feel it neccessary to expose their whole narrative in one trailer. 

Too true. Several have even gotten into legal trouble for showing things that didn't make final cut. False advertising.

Yojimboreo wrote...
Bioware is actually even better in my opinion because there have been moments, for the sake of secrecy in the story of Mass Effect 2, where some of the development team have just straight out lied.

Lied or misled. I agree on this too. Saying one thing while showing another, not so bad in my book if you're trying to hype up without giving too much away.

Yojimboreo wrote...
That's probably for the better, but as a result I think it has risen an unnecessary fervency in the most vocal of fans, and I don't think anything they've revealed thus far is that deserving of antagonism.

Everyone's just trying to entertain themselves over 'till next week.  Antagonism will be replace by legit complaints or trolls.

[LaserKaizoku]

To be honest with all the changes they have made the only thing that really bugs me is that your partners can only wear outfits. I assume there will be plenty of heat sinks, I like the customizable armor and upgradeable weapons but having my partners run around in casual clothes while Shepard is in full protective battle gear just seems off. Not to mention our partners inability to survive in hazardous environments anymore, leading me to believe there won't be any, which is unfortunate.

[Mikey_205]

Scan and replicated does seem like it kinda fits the Sci-fi universe in a kinda trekky way. Next there'll be synthanol and a prime directive. I'd rather they fixed the Mako than took it out (I kinda wish they'd do a Star Fox arwing and tank minigame). I liked the linear tank missions on the main planet and just wish they'd gone that route.



I still think it will be a better game than Mass Effect it really looks like a whole load of fun. But it seems fun from a Jedi Knight perspective as a biotic rather than deep RPG depth. I still think the characters and choices and setting are going to rock and that is number one in my book even if the combat is dumbed down.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

If paragon Shep is going to scan + replicate he should have to buy a liscense from the manufacturer. Otherwise it seems he is stealing. Yeah speceters are supposed to be "above the law" but even in ME 1 if Shep is a paragon he would say stuff like "What, you think this uniform means nothing? I'm supposed to uphold the law, not break it."

Modifié par Grumpy Old Wizard, 18 janvier 2010 - 07:33 .

[Litos456]

Yojimboreo wrote...
They want you have fun in between the stories, not frustrated, filled with tedium, or straight out bored.

That sir, was the smartest thing I've heard on these forums, and the only line that was needed to explain to everyone here including me what's wrong with this thread.

I still partially agree with OP, but you have made a point that cannot be argued with.

Kudos.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

It's simple OP.
Mass Effect is an Xbox franchse.

[DocLasty]

EA likely wanted to make more money off this, since that's all they care about,



At the end of the day, that's what Bioware cares about. That's what every video game company cares about. No one makes videogames out of the kindness of their heart.

[Schneidend]

pejot82 wrote...

• The old system wasn't perfect but I can't see a reason why It couldn't just be improved, instead of being thrown away completely. Now we won't have the dilemma who should get the awesome weapon or armor you just found but there's only one piece. The crappy loot system from ME1 took that away before you reached lvl 10, but hey, wouldn't that be cool and 'RPG-ish'.  Plus, if old inventory system was difficult (console version was worst than PC, i know that much) and boring won't long and complex customizing and research be difficult and boring as well?
• Since I mentioned loot. Why instead if improving we got it literally removed. Instead of a small change that would make every 'drop' valuable instead of 100 zillion items after every fight, now we just scan stuff and replicate. And with no ingame inventory (so it seems) and auto-pickup it seems we're most likely to find out we got something new after missions, aboard Normandy. Instead of finding new mods and ammo during battle, we get ammo powers and necessity of doing sidequests and explotation + research. So where's that immersion, pace and streamlining, that is mentioned so often?
• Skill implementation in ME wasn't perfect so the total number was reduced. Again removing instead if improving. Without ammo skills most classes would actually have only 2-3 skills left. Isn't that absurd? If stat based shooting or damage resistance was unrealistic then how come skill based ammunition that increases it's damage with 'skill points' isn't.
• Skill based hacking/'lock-picking' was criticized, but again it just got totally removed. Couldn't it be simply more difficult for untrained chars. Why could a soldier have less time/more obstacles in hacking mini game, while a tech specialist would get an easier version as his skills progress. some people seem to like challenges - there you go, both options exist, all are happy.
• Mako wasn't best to dive - removed and replaced by a shuttle type craft that just drops the party near target. Only rumors about a misterious craft we can actually pilot.
• Planet exploration was boring - removed and replaced by 10-30 min missions so in fact separate maps likely to be smaller in size that BDtS.

• Research and customization aren't going to leave you with a bunch of useless junk you have to spend time selling or scrapping with minimal benefit. You're being rewarded for investing time into these optional elements of the game, not forced to micromanage an arbitrarily-sized bag of holding filled with worthless equipment.
• How is it immersive to pick up a bunch of crap from enemies you just recently shot apart with acidic bullets or threw into a chasm with your mind? Your Avenger Assault Rifle, Katana Shotgun, and N7 Spaulders are now valuable pieces of equipment, instead of trash to be thrown away as soon as you find the most minor of upgrades.
• The number of skills per character was reduced to make each skill far more important individually, and to make each level purchased affect your character a great deal more. Almost every additional level in a skill will cause the skill to do either improve significantly or do something it could not do before. Even before you evolve a skill in one of two ways (effectively giving a character 12 skills to choose from before bonus talents), a talent like Overload, for instance, gains more effects as it rises in level. At level 3, Overload also disables enemy weapons, like the Sabotage skill from the first game.
• Skill-based ammunition is based on the ability of the person using it because, like any tool, a master can do things with it that a novice cannot. Think of it as Shepard doing some field upgrades on his or her own.
• In regards to lockpicking/hacking, you're proposing something a bit like Bioshock, which was built around the character being potentially capable of doing anything since there are no classes in that game. This requires the game be built around this. Making mini-games function differently for different classes would be resource-intensive.
• The vehicle thing is still a bit up in the air without a confirmation, so it's rather pointless to speculate without anything to speculate on.
• This isn't Fable or Fallout. You're not exploring a rich world set on a single planet. You're exploring the entire galaxy, a rich, "points of light in the darkness" world of mostly barren planets with a single type of environment and only a handful of points of interest at most. Streamlining this to make the exploration a more dynamic mini-game instead of driving around like a tourist just makes more sense for the genre. The Enterprise doesn't just throw a shuttle at a planet and tell some redshirts to "go look for stuff." No, they scan the planet to find out if there's anything of interest, and THEN go there. This will allow Bioware time to invest more time into these missions. Because, if all the uncharted worlds in Mass Effect were comparable to BDtS, nobody would have complained about them.

Modifié par Schneidend, 18 janvier 2010 - 08:54 .

[Kalfear]

DocLasty wrote...

EA likely wanted to make more money off this, since that's all they care about,

At the end of the day, that's what Bioware cares about. That's what every video game company cares about. No one makes videogames out of the kindness of their heart.

Oh, so you stopped saying Mass Effect 1 lost money now?

Still waiting for that proff that Mass Effect 1 was afinancial failure that they need to up the customer level as you like to claim.

But like the rest of the shooter 20, logic, reality, and thruth doesnt really fit in your version of events

[Paradigm Quake]

This thread made me cry.    Once again, someone voices a number of thoughtful, relatively reasonable concerns, and is immediately set upon by a deluge of incoherent insults and accusations of 'trolling'. 

For the record, I don't even really agree with what the OP said, though most of the 'counter arguments', if they can even be called that, have certainly made me more sympathetic to his/her position.

I am now more disgusted with the target demographic for this game than I thought possible, which it especially weird because I'm pretty sure I'm *part* of that demographic, or at least adjacent to it.  It's ironic that the thing that has been most harmful to my expectations for this game, are the people trying to defend it. (And no, not *everyone* defending the game here is being a moron, just the majority.)

Lucky, I know better than to think a obnoxious audience will equal a crappy game. I urge anyone reading this thread not to not write it off based on its 'defenders', either.

[Darth_Shizz]

Kalfear wrote...

DocLasty wrote...

EA likely wanted to make more money off this, since that's all they care about,

At the end of the day, that's what Bioware cares about. That's what every video game company cares about. No one makes videogames out of the kindness of their heart.

Oh, so you stopped saying Mass Effect 1 lost money now?

Still waiting for that proff that Mass Effect 1 was afinancial failure that they need to up the customer level as you like to claim.

But like the rest of the shooter 20, logic, reality, and thruth doesnt really fit in your version of events

Beware. I have fire, and acid.

[sinosleep]

Paradigm Quake wrote...

This thread made me cry.    Once again, someone voices a number of thoughtful, relatively reasonable concerns, and is immediately set upon by a deluge of incoherent insults and accusations of 'trolling'. 

For the record, I don't even really agree with what the OP said, though most of the 'counter arguments', if they can even be called that, have certainly made me more sympathetic to his/her position.

I am now more disgusted with the target demographic for this game than I thought possible, which it especially weird because I'm pretty sure I'm *part* of that demographic, or at least adjacent to it.  It's ironic that the thing that has been most harmful to my expectations for this game, are the people trying to defend it. (And no, not *everyone* defending the game here is being a moron, just the majority.)

Lucky, I know better than to think a obnoxious audience will equal a crappy game. I urge anyone reading this thread not to not write it off based on its 'defenders', either.

Quote some of these "morons" and "incoherent insults" as well as what you obviously don't consider compelling counter aguements and post some of your own or shut up. I can't stand it when someone comes into a thread, basically insults everyone, and then leaves. It's like those people that say "I don't mean any disrespect" right before disrespecting you. If anyone has been simply posting insults it's been the anti-shooter crowd. I've tried templates, I've tried issue by issue break downs, several have asked or SPECIFIC GAMEPLAY ISSUES REPEATEDLY, and yet all of that has gone laregly ignored because frankly I don't think the anti-shooter crowd even has an arguement. Most of what I've seen are extremely vague posts about how the old system was fine and the new system somehow makes it so that the game isn't an rpg even though the VAST MAJORITY of everything you do in the game still falls squarely into rpg territory. Either contribute to the thread or stay out of it.

Modifié par sinosleep, 19 janvier 2010 - 03:00 .

[SnowHeart1]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Question for you because nobody else who is concerned about the loss of roleplaying elements in ME2 has actually addressed this question:

Do you think that the addition of a loyalty system for squadmates, customizable
armor, a customizable ship, a research system for weapons, armor, and
ship, the new interupt system (which exclusively effects dialogue), and
an ending resolution that meanningfully takes in to account your
actions during the story aren't roleplaying elements or do not somewhat to completely balance out any roleplaying elements that have been taken away?

Because where I am standing, I see a slight trimming of some of the more useless/frusterating elements of the ME1 system and the implimentation of several core features that I feel make for a much more fulfilling roleplaying experience.

Fair question. I think, before answering, it's worth touching on an underlying issue:  the definition of an RPG.  I'm not going to try to answer that because, I believe, it's very subjective.  However, what I was trying to get at in my previous post, and what my following answer is going towards, is an argument that for a lot people an RPG -- particularly a CRPG -- necessarily incorporates a lot of the issues talked about by the OP, and they are things that Bioware, wisely or not, is cutting or scaling back on.  It is not just about the storytelling which, as I said, I think will remain excellent.  It is about certain mechanics that for twenty years or so have been staples of CRPGs.  So, as Javier said, perhaps it's just fear of change, but that doesn't make the concern somewhat less legitimate, at least insofar as any opinion is illegitimate.  So... to your question (which was a wee bit loaded, maybe?)

The ending resolution and interupt features would, I argue, go to the storytelling, not the traditional RPG mechanics.  As I said, I think the storytelling will remain excellent, and I have no issue with any of that.  I think I already touched on the customizable armor in my own post, but maybe I'm wrong...  I think it is a great inclusion and, while it was hardly a unique idea, I think I was the first one on the old forums to request that feature.  This, and the ship customization (which we have only heard about so far, so this is relatively speculative as this may ultimately be more of a storytelling rather than RPG issue IMO since you don't actually fight with the Normandy in space battles or anything, but lets focus on the customization) are good inclusions, no doubt.

As for the loyalty system... *shrug*  I guess it's new for ME, but it's not new for Bioware at all nor for CRPGs.  Honestly, I have mixed feelings about loyalty systems... I like the idea, but in practice they frequently fall flat (e.g., Morrigan complaining about helping people and saving kittens in DAO results in negative loyalty but you're not given an opportunity to explain why you're doing it and that your motives may be even darker than her's).

That said, and the loyalty system as a case in point, there is room to improve and reinvent the CRPG genre and what one person thinks is an improvement another may not.  Opinion.  As I said, Bioware's decisions may very well result in an improved game.  But, they are removing some things that have been considered mainstays of CRPGs for more than two decades.  Now, CRPGs have been a (dwindling) niche, and if your primary emphasis for a CRPG is the storytelling rather than getting involved in the nitty-gritty management details, then it is probably a change for the better.  But, I do have a lot of friends who actually loved spending hours with their paperdolls and moving inventory from one bag into another so everything was "just so" and perfectly organized, and Bioware is really moving away from that with ME2.  Maybe that's for the better.  But, I also understand why people wouldn't be thrilled about it, and the inclusion of a customizable armor interface, while VERY cool IMO (plus a fish tank) may not quite be enough for some. 

[Paradigm Quake]

sinosleep wrote...

Quote some of these "morons" and "incoherent insults" as well as what you obviously don't consider compelling counter aguements and post some of your own or shut up. I can't stand it when someone comes into a thread, basically insults everyone, and then leaves. It's like those people that say "I don't mean any disrespect" right before disrespecting you. If anyone has been simply posting insults it's been the anti-shooter crowd. I've tried templates, I've tried issue by issue break downs, several have asked or SPECIFIC GAMEPLAY ISSUES REPEATEDLY, and yet all of that has gone laregly ignored because frankly I don't think the anti-shooter crowd even has an arguement. Most of what I've seen are extremely vague posts about how the old system was fine and the new system somehow makes it so that the game isn't an rpg even though the VAST MAJORITY of everything you do in the game still falls squarely into rpg territory. Either contribute to the thread or stay out of it.

Sorry if I came across as overly hostile there, but some of the comments really irked me, and now that I look over the thread with a calmer mindset, there *does* seem to be a much smaller percentage of annoying in here than I thought.  I didn't quote anyone specifically because it seemed petty and argumentative, though I suppose I managed that anyway...

Just for the record, I thought your arguments were pretty reasonable and well-thought-out.  And in case you missed my main point, I agree with you on pretty much every point, and I think the 'anti-shooter crowd', if such a label is accurate, are worried over nothing.  This however, does not enrage me the same way it seems to do others, which was kinda my point.

Finally, no disrespect, but you suck.

[sinosleep]

LOL, that was an unexpected reply. 

Modifié par sinosleep, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:19 .

[Zlarm]

I'm glad to see I'm no the only one who thought BioWare was a little heavy handed in ripping out mechanics that didn't work well in ME1 (instead of refining them). I had a rather lengthy conversation on the old forums about this topic.

My personal pet peeves would be the 1. new squad armour and 2. weapons/inventory system.

1.  As much as the word immersion gets thrown around I will have some serious problems taking the game seriously if we can't throw a set of armour on all of our squad members (Suddenly Biotics/Tech suddenly protect you from the vaccum of space as well as freezing/ burning to death on hostile planets). I mean so far two of our squad members are in pajamas/jumpsuits one is wearing a leather strap over her mammaries (I mean logically every cutscene should start off with someone asking what the hell SuZe is wearing) and one is in a trench coat.

2.  Although my fears haven't been totally confirmed in regards to the number of weapons per type available I get the impression there will be 2 or 3 weapons per type that will stay relevant throughout the game by being continuously upgraded. This removes a lot of the strategic decisions as far as item use is concerned (beyond do I want to use a shotgun or a sniper).

All that said I will reserve final judgment about the new systems until I play the game myself. Hopefully my worries are unfounded.

Modifié par Zlarm, 19 janvier 2010 - 04:37 .

[Frotality]

Paradigm Quake wrote...

This thread made me cry.    Once again, someone voices a number of thoughtful, relatively reasonable concerns, and is immediately set upon by a deluge of incoherent insults and accusations of 'trolling'. 

For the record, I don't even really agree with what the OP said, though most of the 'counter arguments', if they can even be called that, have certainly made me more sympathetic to his/her position.

I am now more disgusted with the target demographic for this game than I thought possible, which it especially weird because I'm pretty sure I'm *part* of that demographic, or at least adjacent to it.  It's ironic that the thing that has been most harmful to my expectations for this game, are the people trying to defend it. (And no, not *everyone* defending the game here is being a moron, just the majority.)

Lucky, I know better than to think a obnoxious audience will equal a crappy game. I urge anyone reading this thread not to not write it off based on its 'defenders', either.

this= ultimate truth.

though in retrospect, i can wager alot of people use the anonymity of teh internetz to be radical and stupid.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

What puzzles me is that a lot of the people who actually like the changes act like ME1 was an inferior game. The fact that you played it brought you here. ME1 wasn't a commercial flop, so there must have been something good about it. If the gameplay was really that bad then I doubt these people would be willing to wait for 2.

Any game can be improved, but it shouldn't lose its identity.

Claiming that a bunch of stats are what make up even PART of the identity of Mass Effect, is actually incredibly demeaning to what is otherwise a brilliantly crafted game.

Where is that claim?

[sinosleep]

Zlarm wrote...
2.  Although my fears haven't been totally confirmed in regards to the number of weapons per type available I get the impression there will be 2 or 3 weapons per type that will stay relevant throughout the game by being continuously upgraded. This removes a lot of the strategic decisions as far as item use is concerned (beyond do I want to use a shotgun or a sniper).

All that said I will reserve final judgment about the new systems until I play the game myself. Hopefully my worries are unfounded.

As I've asked countless times, how is this any different than ME 1? You unlock spectre weapons on first playthrough, you now never have to make a decision with regards to what weapon you're going to use EVER again. Itemization was never something to put thought into in the first game. All ME 2 has done is gotten rid of the constant influx of vendor trash.

The armor sets it's just an agree to disagree thing. For one, we haven't seen any footage whatsoever that there are even any truly hostile enviornments in the game, so if they aren't there that's a non issue in regards to what people are wearing. And frankly, I prefer it this way any way. Many games that allow you to place every armor piece on everyone in your armor wind up using the same body model on everyone. Just look at Dragon Age for example. When Morrigan is in her default clothing she has a different body type than the standard female NPC, but throw any kind of armor on her and viola, goodbye individuality hello cookie cutter. Miranda and SuZe have completely different body types even though they are both female. If switching to outfits instead of using armor results in that staying that way then so be it. It's worth it in my eyes. Hazardous enviornments be damned.

[ztonkin]

Completely agree w/ the OP. It's like they're removing RPG elements and replacing them with shooter elements to cater to a whole new audience and snuffing original fans. I mean it's one thing to maybe explain some elements' removal lore-wise, but the fact that squaddies don't need a sealed enviro suit in a vacuum, or battle armor in a firefight, while Shepard clearly does, is just puzzling. It can't possibly be explained by the lore and taken seriously. And a lot of new features clearly cater to gamers that play shooters like Gears, such as the new cover system, the ammo system, and the regen health. Still, I can't judge 'till I play. All the new stuff could be for the best.