340 réponses à ce sujet

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

Murmillos wrote...



It was a great game, with a lot of little flaws that can be easily (as have been shown) to be fixed.



The lore, story, characters, atmosphere are all excellent reasons we keep playing ME.



The actual game-play, while not broken, had many elements which did not work well. Not that it was ever bad - because it was never broken and never got in the way of playing the game, but many of those aspects needed (and have) been improved.

And we come back to the main issue: the fact that these little flaws, despite being so easy to fix, have instead for the most part been axed, replaced or twisted beyond recognition for Mass Effect 2. Removing is not improving, or at least not improving on the initial concept. Throwing something out is not fixing something.

Again, we come to your opinion of whats so little and so easy to fix in your mind. There very well may have been half of the development team that felt the way you did, but end the end realized that no matter how much they wanted to hold on to the old system, going in this new direction was the better way to go over all. Will it alienate a few customers, Yes - as proof of these threads, but the over all picture is that they believe the mast majority, both RPG and shooter fans will enjoy the new system rather then the old system.



The "little" fix for the combat system was removing stat based aiming. Thats it. That's all that has changed. Sure you can say changing the ammo system also was a change to the combat system also, but it isn't. It's fixing another function/aspect of the game, not the actual combat system. Shooter fans never asked that stat based aiming be removed, we just asked that it be made to work better. Apparently in making it work better most likely meant reducing it so much that including wasn't worth the allocation of stats - so why include it when having it was minimally negligible - other then to have it because RPG law demands that it be included?



I would trust Bioware that they fixed the "little" flaws that makes the game better in the direction that they want to take the game, and not the direction that the ultra bioware loyalist demands that they keep it as.



We've seen a good number of clips of how the how system works, but we don't know how the whole system works together in all of its nuances.





Maybe its just me and my "limited view of thinking", but I can not understand on how anybody would still want to keep the old ME1 combat system other then keeping the stats for arcanic RPG reasons.

[DarthReavus]

scyphozoa wrote...

i think it is a real insult to bioware devs to suggest they would water down a title they care a lot about just to sell more copies. bioware games are pieces of art.

Especially the Mass Effect trilogy which is their flagship franchise, masterpiece and crowning glory.

[Terror_K]

I don't mean to directly insult the devs, particularly since many of them have given me so much joy in the past and made such great stuff, but if I'm insulting the devs by suggesting that... then I guess I am. That's certainly what it looks like is happening from where I'm sitting.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 janvier 2010 - 02:06 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Terror_K wrote...

I don't mean to directly insult the devs, particularly since many of them have given me so much joy in the past and made such great stuff, but if I'm insulting the devs by suggesting that... then I guess I am. That's certainly what it looks like is happening from where I'm sitting.

I don't think that's up for debate. It doesn't make sense. You are entitled to your opinion. Don't fall into the trap that somehow what you believe is right insults the devs. I think statements like that are intended to either make you feel guilty or are intended to try to shut you up.

[sinosleep]

What's not up for debate?

[SurfaceBeneath]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You don't like it when I point out that your opinion is based on assumptions? And your troll reference... I am used to how people like you discuss. So, I will ignore it for now.

But I am bait (pun intended)...

ME is an RPG around the story of Shepard and his crew defeating the Reapers.

About the RPG... Most party members from ME1 are not returning as crew in ME2.You can argue that it doesn't have to be a big deal if you are not connected to those characters. I was. I felt ME1 was a good introduction to them and the game gave me a lot of background info. This is a good thing for the first part of a story. Now that we have that out of the way, let the story around these characters unfold. I am also very interested to how my love interest from part 1 develops in part 2.

Ok, but these aren't gameplay changes at all. Bioware is choosing to move the story in a specific way and to follow Shepard along that path. You might not like what you know of the story now, but you don't know it exactly and it's not your story anyway. They're telling you the story, you're sitting in the place of Shepard experiencing it first hand. Regardless, this doesn't make it any less of an RPG, it makes it a story complaint on your part. Whether or not this is valid, it does not make Mass Effect 2 any less an RPG than Mass Effect 1.

You may not like RPGs, but I do.

7 of my top 10 favorite games of all time are RPGs, a good portion of those being Bioware/Black Isle and I've been playing them since the mid 90s. I'd say I'm more than qualified to say that RPGs are my favorite genre as well.

And I am used to the stats mechanics that I need to level up to become better in skills and talents. I don't need instant gratification to make it a point-and-click adventure or a third person shooter. BTW: I am a FPS/TPS fan. I really love them and have a large collection of them. But ME1 was more an RPG with guns than a TPS with a great story.

However, there aren't much from the old stats left in ME2. They aren't even compatible anymore. It is even so radically different that the game cannot import the stats of ME1 characters.

The ME1 character import is rather important. It was fundamental to the game. It was marketed as a feature. Decisions made in the trilogy would impact the story as it evolved. And I was in awe.

Of course the most important decisions I made involved the crew and the main story. If we are lucky the main crew gets a cameo and that cuts significantly in the decision tree. One of the most important decisions at the very end isn't even saved in the game.

So yes... I am not in awe anymore. I am going to play this game as a new independent title in the franchise. I will not make the mistake to attach myself to the characters (but use them as disposables to reach my goal instead) and gamble that I like the new game mechanics.

Does that mean that I don't like any of the new changes. No. Of course not.

Edit: This how I feel about it. Subjective. True. But gaming is subjective.

Ok, I asked for specific examples of how you felt that ME2 is becoming less of an RPG than ME1, but you never gave one. You're saying that you're not looking forward to ME2 due to expectations you put on it, expectations that, I am sorry, are not fair. Bioware could not have anticipated how you would have guided the story, nor do they have the responsibility to take your interpretation of the story and go that way with it instead of mine or anyone else's. You admit this is a subjective complaint, and I understand that, but you can't expect to relay your subjective complaints to other people here. They will not understand you in the least because they are entirely founded in your own experiences and expectations which are uniquely yours and are not shared among anyone but you. So don't get angry when people question you or expect a reason for your dislike of ME2.

My argument is that ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1 ever was. Every stat or mechanic that was removed was done so because it was the right decision and replaced with something that will work better. In addition, for every stat or mechanic that was removed, one was added that enhances the RPG aspect of the game. If you feel like you would like to argue with me on this matter, than do so with reasoned arguments. If you want to complain how the story is not moving in a direction you expected, then I do not think this thread was made with that perspective in mind and should probably have another thread devoted to that instead.

[MarloMarlo]

Terror_K wrote...
I don't honestly know where the line is drawn, since it's a tough one. I wouldn't, for example call GTA: San Andreas an RPG even though it had character customisation, weapon skills you could level up, driving skills, swimming skills, etc. because it is primarily an action game. It does mix many genres though.

It's a pretty important line to draw for the kinds of arguments people are making here. And you do have to draw it if you want to argue that one game is more of an RPG than another, or even an RPG at all.

Stats are just numbers that sometimes help determine how successful actions not determined by other means are. They're only essential when the game's rules say that they are. They are not inherently necessary to RPGs, since numbers are not role playing. The only thing that's role playing is role playing. So the freedom to make decisons on how situations are handled is the only logical way to measure how much role playing is in a game compared to another. Nothing about role playing necessitates dice over pointing a crosshair with a mouse or analog stick.

If you're not going to count GTA: SA as an RPG, it should be because there's no role playing (unless there is), not because it has stats but you considered it to primarily be an action game. It's not like ME1 wasn't primarily played by pointing and shooting. Both games even had weapon stats, so what's the difference?

I'll tell you what the difference is: role playing. The opportunity to choose to commit genocide or not commit it, or be mean or nice to Conrad Verner. If GTA: SA has that, too, well, sorry, it has role playing elements, just like ME1 has them, and you're just going to have to accept it or make a better argument.

Terror_K wrote...
I still feel that Mass Effect 2 is an RPG from what I can tell, but that it's less of one than the original. The fact that shooting is now not influenced by stats in any way is the main problem, since I feel stats should determine one's ability to perform combat in an RPG. Yes, stats do effect the combat in other ways, but essentially we have a TPS system governing one's ability to shoot.

You already know why I don't think stats in combat has anything to do with measuring how much of an RPG something is. But aside from that argument, by your own standards, you can't hold a lack of combat stats against ME2's RPG quantum. Stats do affect the combat, like you said.

The ability to aim a weapon accurately is essentially a stat that's either at 100(-ish) percent or 0 percent for each weapon, whereas in ME1, we could use any weapon we wanted, even without spending any points on the skill. We were just worse at it without points. That we can be trained to use another weapon type is progression enough. Then there are the research upgrades (I don't see why it has to be a number on your personal character sheet to be progression) and the ammo skills.

Accuracy is essentially a damage stat. A 50 percent chance to hit every second for 100 damage is 50 damage per second on the spreadsheet. Bump the accuracy up to 100 percent, and it's 100 damage per second on the spreadsheet. If you instead bump the damage up to 200 and keep the accuracy the same, it's 100 damage per second on the spreadsheet. You get the idea.
 
Stats, even the character stats on your character sheet, still affect weapon damage in ME2. And then there are the biotic and tech powers, which are supposed to be available for use more often.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 18 janvier 2010 - 03:04 .

[DarthReavus]

MarloMarlo wrote...

And then there are the biotic and tech powers, which are supposed to be available for use more often.

Much more often.  Cooldown times are reported to be around 5 seconds or less, instead of the roughly 50 seconds in ME1.

Modifié par DarthReavus, 18 janvier 2010 - 02:29 .

[crimzontearz]

what, this again?



ok, for the gajillionth time, armor mods are IN. each armor piece comes with its own bonuses and such, so basically mods are integrated parts of the armor you equip....



and again anyone remember where customization went after the first playthrough? That's right, down the tubes...everyone wore clossus x armor and everyone wielded spectre weapons with polonium rounds VII (if one knew they were the best rounds in the game)....the result was that the equipment became totally static. At least now with the different defenses opposed to differet damages there is always the need of bringing the right weapon and mod for the mission depending on the prospected resistance.

[MarloMarlo]

Terror_K wrote...
Which, as I've said, that wasn't the problem of the system so much as the items.

And that seems to be the overall problem I have with many of the changes. Just like many of the fans. it's like BioWare has decided to destroy the vending machines because they were filled with apples instead of candy. Because that's the vending machine's fault.

If the vending machine is supposed to be filled with candy instead of apples, step one to fixing the problem is getting rid of the apples. And since it's candy in there now, you can't just gorge yourself on what's in the vending machine because that would be retarded.

The vending machine hasn't been destroyed. It's just giving you different stuff now. And I don't know about you, but when the vending machine gives out candy, I'm gonna want those termal clips and that research stuff. Because screw getting fat.

Modifié par MarloMarlo, 18 janvier 2010 - 02:56 .

[Recon N7]

I have a feeling the changes will be an improvement for the better. Some may be leary about them now, but once the game is out, those will soon realize how much better everything is. I'm confident that BioWare has playing with these new ways of doing things for quite some time developing the game, and they wouldn't just make dumb changes for the sake of making dumb changes.

[SnowHeart1]

I think a lot of the folks criticizing the OP didn't bother to closely read it. I'm very much looking forward to ME2 and, much like the first, I will wager the storytelling remains superior. Notice, I said storytelling as opposed to RPG. I am concerned that the OP is correct; that a lot of what are considered traditional RPG mechanics have been removed from the game or nerfed. The inventory system is a case-in-point. Yes, the one in ME (360 version, at least) was terrible. But, many RPG fans consider getting to play with a well-designed inventory system to be part of the pleasures of a game. Instead of developing an improved inventory system, it sounds like we now have a couple of terminals where we (a) get to customize Shephards armor only and ( select weapons for the squad.  It's not really an inventory system at all; rather just a serious of terminals.  That may well be an improvement, but it is quite a departure from traditional RPG mechanics.  As an (old) fan of those kinds of games (going back to the old SSI gold box games), yes... it causes me some concern.  The OPs other points also a resonated with me.

I hate to disagree with Javier, whose posts I've usually found VERY informative and helpful, but here... I have to respectfully disagree. It is too early to judge the game, but one can still have concerns about it. You could call them "fears", and I suppose that's not inaccurate. But that doesn't make them less fair. It is quite possible these changes are for the better and, regardless, it sounds like the storytelling will remain awesome. And, perhaps Bioware is just deciding to reinvent what a CRPG is and, perhaps, the reinvention will work and be for the best. But, yes, I remain somewhat concerned about many of the points identified by the OP. I guess I will only know the answer after my fourth or fifth play-through. :-)

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 18 janvier 2010 - 03:18 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You don't like it when I point out that your opinion is based on assumptions? And your troll reference... I am used to how people like you discuss. So, I will ignore it for now.

But I am bait (pun intended)...

ME is an RPG around the story of Shepard and his crew defeating the Reapers.

About the RPG... Most party members from ME1 are not returning as crew in ME2.You can argue that it doesn't have to be a big deal if you are not connected to those characters. I was. I felt ME1 was a good introduction to them and the game gave me a lot of background info. This is a good thing for the first part of a story. Now that we have that out of the way, let the story around these characters unfold. I am also very interested to how my love interest from part 1 develops in part 2.

Ok, but these aren't gameplay changes at all. Bioware is choosing to move the story in a specific way and to follow Shepard along that path. You might not like what you know of the story now, but you don't know it exactly and it's not your story anyway. They're telling you the story, you're sitting in the place of Shepard experiencing it first hand. Regardless, this doesn't make it any less of an RPG, it makes it a story complaint on your part. Whether or not this is valid, it does not make Mass Effect 2 any less an RPG than Mass Effect 1.

I do think the story and how it is told in ME s a rather important part of the gameplay. No story. No ME. And cutting characters reduced the complexity of having to deal with the decision trees and thus reduced the cost. A gameplay feature that is directly related to it is the interruption option. To which I look forward, BTW.

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

You may not like RPGs, but I do.

7 of my top 10 favorite games of all time are RPGs, a good portion of those being Bioware/Black Isle and I've been playing them since the mid 90s. I'd say I'm more than qualified to say that RPGs are my favorite genre as well.

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

And I am used to the stats mechanics that I need to level up to become better in skills and talents. I don't need instant gratification to make it a point-and-click adventure or a third person shooter. BTW: I am a FPS/TPS fan. I really love them and have a large collection of them. But ME1 was more an RPG with guns than a TPS with a great story.

However, there aren't much from the old stats left in ME2. They aren't even compatible anymore. It is even so radically different that the game cannot import the stats of ME1 characters.

The ME1 character import is rather important. It was fundamental to the game. It was marketed as a feature. Decisions made in the trilogy would impact the story as it evolved. And I was in awe.

Of course the most important decisions I made involved the crew and the main story. If we are lucky the main crew gets a cameo and that cuts significantly in the decision tree. One of the most important decisions at the very end isn't even saved in the game.

So yes... I am not in awe anymore. I am going to play this game as a new independent title in the franchise. I will not make the mistake to attach myself to the characters (but use them as disposables to reach my goal instead) and gamble that I like the new game mechanics.

Does that mean that I don't like any of the new changes. No. Of course not.

Edit: This how I feel about it. Subjective. True. But gaming is subjective.

Ok, I asked for specific examples of how you felt that ME2 is becoming less of an RPG than ME1, but you never gave one. You're saying that you're not looking forward to ME2 due to expectations you put on it, expectations that, I am sorry, are not fair. Bioware could not have anticipated how you would have guided the story, nor do they have the responsibility to take your interpretation of the story and go that way with it instead of mine or anyone else's. You admit this is a subjective complaint, and I understand that, but you can't expect to relay your subjective complaints to other people here. They will not understand you in the least because they are entirely founded in your own experiences and expectations which are uniquely yours and are not shared among anyone but you. So don't get angry when people question you or expect a reason for your dislike of ME2.

My argument is that ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1 ever was. Every stat or mechanic that was removed was done so because it was the right decision and replaced with something that will work better. In addition, for every stat or mechanic that was removed, one was added that enhances the RPG aspect of the game. If you feel like you would like to argue with me on this matter, than do so with reasoned arguments. If you want to complain how the story is not moving in a direction you expected, then I do not think this thread was made with that perspective in mind and should probably have another thread devoted to that instead.

Let's make it more clear to you then. The removal of several stats (like the ones effecting healing and aiming and replacing them by auto-generation and hand-eye-coordination) are examples which lead me to believe that ME2 made the move from a RPG with guns to a TPS with a story. These are not two tiny stats. They impact gameplay significantly. It blew holes in most if not all classes. So, the character that I will import was build around these stats. These are non-existent in ME2. If you like that change, then more power to you. I won't even recognize my own player character. Maybe there is something left in the imported decision tree (which was weeded significantly because of the introduction of a new crew). I doubt it.

I think I am right on topic. Removal of gameplay features may or may not have led to other better or worse gameplay features, but what is there to show for it in my imported character? Very little. I might as well start a new character.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 18 janvier 2010 - 03:21 .

[sinosleep]

Angry Frozen Water, how many TPS/FPS games have you level up? How many of them have 50+ hour campaigns? How many of them have ability trees that directly affect combat which are they themselves directly affected by stat points which are only acquired through gaining XP? You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. While aiming IS a big mechanic, it is still just ONE mechanic. At the end of the day there are still more things directly affected by stat points than aren't, far more in fact.

I tried to get this point across with the big wall of text I posted breaking things down category by category but apparently this didn't work.

I guess an easier breakdown would be this. If you took your Shepard to lvl 30 and didn't invest a single stat point, instead relying solely on the simplified abilities I doubt you'd make much progress in the game. Sure you could hit enemies just as easily as my lvl 30, but you would be doing less damage, taking more in return, and have no abilities to speak of other than decrypting things. Meanwhile I could be using biotic and tech abilities for damage and cc as well as specialized ammo for taking down shields, barriers, or armors. All of which ane 100% entirely stat dependant. The game is not remotely close to being a TPS. It merely has one of the core mechanics.

Modifié par sinosleep, 18 janvier 2010 - 03:35 .

[DocLasty]

Let's make it more clear to you then. The removal of several stats (like the ones effecting healing and aiming and replacing them by auto-generation and hand-eye-coordination) are examples which lead me to believe that ME2 made the move from a RPG with guns to a TPS with a story. These are not two tiny stats. They impact gameplay significantly. It blew holes in most if not all classes. So, the character that I will import was build around these stats. These are non-existent in ME2. If you like that change, then more power to you. I won't even recognize my own player character. Maybe there is something left in the imported decision tree (which was weeded significantly because of the introduction of a new crew). I doubt it.



I think I am right on topic. Removal of gameplay features may or may not have led to other better or worse gameplay features, but what is there to show for it in my imported character? Very little. I might as well start a new character.





First and foremost, you'd miss out on all the decisions you made during the story - the people you saved, the lives you impacted, the things you did, all of it. If you start a new character, you'll be left with what the game's default is. The point of Mass Effect was and always has been that the decision you make in the story carry over from game to game. That hasn't changed.



Second, Mass Effect 1 WAS an TPS, just about as much as ME2 is. You spent a very large chunk of the game just shooting at people and getting shot at. What's changed is that now the shooting part of it is more accessible and easier to work with, but they've done that without getting rid of the RPG factor. You still have to make decisions on where you pump the points, and those decisions have more impact than ever; the skills you choose to focus on and develop branch out and have altering paths now, so you could play as the same class twice and have a different sort of experience each time.

[SurfaceBeneath]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Let's make it more clear to you then. The removal of several stats (like the ones effecting healing and aiming and replacing them by auto-generation and hand-eye-coordination) are examples which lead me to believe that ME2 made the move from a RPG with guns to a TPS with a story. These are not two tiny stats. They impact gameplay significantly. It blew holes in most if not all classes. So, the character that I will import was build around these stats. These are non-existent in ME2. If you like that change, then more power to you. I won't even recognize my own player character. Maybe there is something left in the imported decision tree (which was weeded significantly because of the introduction of a new crew). I doubt it.

I think I am right on topic. Removal of gameplay features may or may not have led to other better or worse gameplay features, but what is there to show for it in my imported character? Very little. I might as well start a new character.

Bioware never said that your character's stats would transfer from ME1 to ME2. Again, you are poisoning your anticipation of Mass Effect 2 purely through your expectations.

And no, nothing you listed is a specific gameplay mechanic that was removed for the worst. Your complaints are with the story not progressing as you would like, and the import not being what you wanted. Neither of these are RPG mechanics being removed and thus do not belong in this thread. I highly suggest you create a new thread about how you wish that you disagree with the path the story is taking or wish that the import feature took more of your character skills in to account.

Finally, I'm sensing a whole ton of unwarranted condescending from you. I haven't missed a point you've made, but you seem to be avoiding my core question and then when I ask you to address that question you either get frusterated and angry at me, or trying to make it seem like I'm not understanding you.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 18 janvier 2010 - 04:12 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

I think a lot of the folks criticizing the OP didn't bother to closely read it. I'm very much looking forward to ME2 and, much like the first, I will wager the storytelling remains superior. Notice, I said storytelling as opposed to RPG. I am concerned that the OP is correct; that a lot of what are considered traditional RPG mechanics have been removed from the game or nerfed. The inventory system is a case-in-point. Yes, the one in ME (360 version, at least) was terrible. But, many RPG fans consider getting to play with a well-designed inventory system to be part of the pleasures of a game. Instead of developing an improved inventory system, it sounds like we now have a couple of terminals where we (a) get to customize Shephards armor only and ( select weapons for the squad.  It's not really an inventory system at all; rather just a serious of terminals.  That may well be an improvement, but it is quite a departure from traditional RPG mechanics.  As an (old) fan of those kinds of games (going back to the old SSI gold box games), yes... it causes me some concern.  The OPs other points also a resonated with me.

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.

[sinosleep]

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.

Honestly I think I'm pretty much done here. I don't see how many other ways we can phrase it, objectively listing things that are obviously using rpg dynamics, and yet being told that ME 2 is somehow now a shooter that happens to have a few rpg mechanics.

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.

Modifié par sinosleep, 18 janvier 2010 - 04:49 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

DarthReavus wrote...

MarloMarlo wrote...

And then there are the biotic and tech powers, which are supposed to be available for use more often.

Much more often.  Cooldown times are reported to be around 5 seconds or less, instead of the roughly 50 seconds in ME1.

All biotics are on one cooldown timer so I'm not sure if you'll actually be using biotics more or not. You'll be able maybe to spam one particular power more. But if you cast a singularity you can't cast ANY other power until the cooldown timer is reset.

So its going to be "wait and see" if you'll actually be using biotics more or not. In ME1 you can be pretty much using biotics constantly as you reach a higher level and have decent gear.

[TheConfidenceMan]

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.

[sinosleep]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

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.

Never said it was undoable, I'm saying it wouldn't be any where remotely near as efficient. Even if you went straight up soldier, you would be missing weapon specializations, all 4 ammo types which will be far more important this time around due to enemy defenses, no adrenaline rush, no concussive shot. You could hit targets just as easily, but you wouldn't be able to take them down any where near as fast and you wouldn't be nearly as durable. Oh, and no class specialization either.

Modifié par sinosleep, 18 janvier 2010 - 05:08 .

[Litos456]

Meh I kinda agree with both sides of this argument. Of course BioWare is a great company and they've always seemed to make good games and we all hope they know what they're doing but there's that publisher influence.



EA likely wanted to make more money off this, since that's all they care about, so they said, sell it to shooter fans. Maybe BW was like WTF? So in that case, even though we can't play them, we should still be able to complain. It still sucks, and one way or another there's nobody who can be responsible but BioWare and their superiors.



I feel as this game might be a little disappointing. The remove instead of improve is really upsetting me. A lot of good things have been made easier and simpler as to appeal to shooter fans, but it's like you're kissing up to their arses just for the money and praise... Who cares about the shooter fans, Mass Effect is Mass Effect, it shouldn't be anything else...



sigh, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.