just one simple thing that annoyed the hell out of me
( Holstering for mass effect 3)
just leave that stuff in,
makes no sense to take it out.
(hell the animation is even in the game if you walk up to a wall it will lower the weapon xD
so to me it's just really weird why they took it out.)
Update: what i would change to is the omega dlc after its completed make omega a hub area
it also annoyed me greatly that Aria just went back to the citadel like nothing happen.
I agree - and gradual, linear skill improvements feel much more natural and organic than giant steps.
And also more boring. It's the reason I don't like Skyrim's leveling system; if ranks come gradually, you can barely feel the difference in combat, especially if the enemies grow stronger as the game progresses.
Games are about fun, and responsive leveling is more fun.
Your analogy is loaded at the wrong end. I'll fix it for you.
Imagine I offered someone a choice between receiving a dollar every day for a year or $365 at the end of the year. Etc.
Precisely. $365 at the end of the year would still feel better. Same with $30 every month or $180 every 6. People like lump sums. Even more so because they have to scrape by until payday. It might not sound very nice, but this cycle of starving and feasting gives the player a much greater sense of reward.
Actually, leveling still occurs, you just don't have enough skill points to do anything with them. You've gone up in level, but have nothing to show for it. Yet.
As I said, the end result might be slower leveling, but it's still more rewarding.
Indeed, many of us would prefer a more holistically competent RPG. One that is not entirely focused on combat, but includes non-combat skills - you know, the things that were eliminated in ME2 in favor of pew pew.
Mass Effect isn't just an RPG. Like it or not, it is as much an RPG as it is "pew pew." No, ME2-3 don't have very many passive skills, but neither did ME1, really. It had charm/intimidate, class specialization, damage reduction/health, and hacking. The first added arbitrary "complexity" to the simple dialog system, the second and third remained throughout the whole series, and the fourth served as an excuse to keep in the boring hacking mini game.
Could BioWare have improved on both active and passive abilities? Sure, if they had a few more years and bigger budget, but they didn't. They had a finite amount of resources and chose to spend them on the core experience, the combat. Numbers are nice and I love my attribute points, but if the shooting isn't fun, no amount RPG leveling is going to fix that.
One of my favorite leveling systems is actually from KoTOR. It had your small skill improvements, but each level also provided feats and force powers. I would love to see a hybrid system like this, but I don't ever want BioWare to sacrifice feats for skill points. Mass Effect is an active game and it should be built as such.
And also more boring.
Precisely. $365 at the end of the year would still feel better. Same with $30 every month or $180 every 6. People like lump sums. Even more so because they have to scrape by until payday. It might not sound very nice, but this cycle of starving and feasting gives the player a much greater sense of reward.
Mass Effect isn't just an RPG.
Could BioWare have improved on both active and passive abilities? Sure, if they had a few more years and bigger budget, but they didn't. They had a finite amount of resources and chose to spend them on the core experience, the combat. Numbers are nice and I love my attribute points, but if the shooting isn't fun, no amount RPG leveling is going to fix that.
Opinion. I disagree.
Which is fine, but generally people prefer a cycle of drought and reward.
Again, with the analogy, $1 is basically worthless to me. To make any significant purchase, I'd need to save up my $1 for a while. The process works the same, but I don't get the satisfaction of grabbing a nice, crisp $50 bill.
You may not prefer that method, but that doesn't make ME2's leveling bad.
ME1 was much more of an RPG than either of its successors.
But how much more? Most of the extra RPG systems it had were sloppy or downright unnecessary. ME1 might be more of an RPG, but it's more of a bad one. ME2 was lighter on some of the roleplaying, but at least what it had was good.
As I said, RPG stuff isn't bad, it's just difficult to reconcile with active mechanics
The core experience of a role-playing game is role-play. Many RPGs actually provide methods to resolve conflicts that don't involve combat. Shifting the focus away from role-play and toward combat as the core experience is a genre shift.
First of all, how many times could you resolve conflict peacefully in ME1? Once? Twice, maybe? And they were all side missions if I remember correctly. Besides, interrupts somewhat make up for them. I agree that I would like to see more diplomatic solutions in the future, but their partial absence in the sequels hardly constitutes a "genre shift."
Second, I can sympathize with BioWare when it comes to avoiding combat. Level design in shooters is a long and complicated process, much more than RPG encounters. A peaceful workaround might lead the player past weeks of design work and a decent chunk of gameplay. ME1 got away with it because the level designers just copied and pasted assets in a semi-coordinated fashion. It wasn't so easy once the devs put more care into their work. I know that might not entirely justify removing some options, but it does prove that making a TPS RPG isn't a walk in the park. BioWare had to cut something.
Which is fine, but generally people prefer a cycle of drought and reward.
Again, with the analogy, $1 is basically worthless to me. To make any significant purchase, I'd need to save up my $1 for a while. The process works the same, but I don't get the satisfaction of grabbing a nice, crisp $50 bill.
But how much more? Most of the extra RPG systems it had were sloppy or downright unnecessary. ME1 might be more of an RPG, but it's more of a bad one. ME2 was lighter on some of the roleplaying, but at least what it had was good.
As I said, RPG stuff isn't bad, it's just difficult to reconcile with active mechanics
First of all, how many times could you resolve conflict peacefully in ME1? Once? Twice, maybe? And they were all side missions if I remember correctly.
Besides, interrupts somewhat make up for them. I agree that I would like to see more diplomatic solutions in the future, but their partial absence in the sequels hardly constitutes a "genre shift."
Second, I can sympathize with BioWare when it comes to avoiding combat. Level design in shooters is a long and complicated process, much more than RPG encounters.
Again with the argumentum ad populum. You did at least avoid "most people" terminology this time, but unless you have legitimate statistics from an authoritative source, or can demonstrate that you've been appointed as the spokesman for "most people", you're speaking for yourself and your personal tastes and preferences.
I only tell you what I've learned from game design courses and lectures. It's the concept of interest curves. It's proven design.
Besides, I can prove to you that more people like ME2 over ME1. That doesn't necessarily prove that they specifically liked the leveling more, but it doesn't seem like it was a huge problem.
ME1's system did not prevent you from upgrading skills in bigger chunks. You always had the option of saving up skill points from multiple level-ups to buy every step of a skill all at once, if you so desire. ME2-3's systems did prevent me from upgrading skills in smaller, more organic steps.
Sure, but who would do that? It's the game's job to apply the limits not mine. Without specific instruction, I doubt many player would even think to do this. The mechanics of a game should try to steer player's towards the most fun way to play.
ME2's P/R mechanics did heavy damage to role-playing. In order to get a persuade option, you needed to have some % of the total available P/R points up to that point. Since those negotiation options are needed to navigate some significant events later in the game, as a player, this mechanic compels me to:
-- Do a lot of the sidequests that reward P/R points, whether or not my character would be interested in doing them.
-- Choose mostly pure Paragon or Renegade responses and avoid neutral options.
... both of which are seriously detrimental to role-playing.
ME1 allowed me the choice and consequence of investing skill points in Charm / Intimidate. That gave me the opportunity to determine whether Shepard was better at negotiation or some other skill. It also required a party member to have skills in decryption or electronics in order to attempt opening anything secured. More choice and consequence, something that I've seen requested in RPG forums time and time again.
I never advocated the P/R system. In fact, I think it should be removed entirely. However, I'm still no fan of charm/intimidate. By separating the two, BioWare still urges the player to align themselves on a single side, and I don't like the idea of boiling down persuasion to a stat. The act of speaking should require artful navigation of dialog, active convincing, and not simple percent checking.
I'll admit, ME1 is better in this regard. Charm/intimidate probably shouldn't have been removed for straight P/R, but its absence doesn't totally ruin ME2. It was a minor stat the was rarely used. I can see how this one change makes ME2-3 worse, but not that much worse.
How so?
ME2-3 still had P/R mechanics, they just took the skills out of your direct control and made the process of earning those options much more convoluted. They did that behind the scenes so you wouldn't have to 'waste' your precious combat skill points on silly 'RPG stuff'.
In this case, I was specifically talking about balancing combat. Heavily leaning on skills and attributes like strength, agility, and accuracy in active combat can make things convoluted or downright unfair.
There were several places where you could engage different gameplay / options, depending on your Charm / Intimidate skills - including the Wrex confrontation on Virmire and getting Saren to off himself during the final battle.
Aren't those essentially the only two? Again, I agree that ME1 was better in this regard, but I don't remember it leaning heavily on passive skill for major decisions.
I would agree that the interrupts are a fun addition to an interactive movie / choose your own adventure sort of game, but find it difficult to justify them in role-playing - since you don't know what the character will do until you select the interrupt and see it play out.
Again, I agree. Interrupts should be a bit more obvious about their effects, but this is BioWare we're talking about here. Since the creation of the dialog wheel, they've never been very good with telegraphing the meaning of choices.
Another great reason to focus more on RPG mechanics than shooter level design.
A lot of the changes made from ME1->ME2 were intended to appeal to shooter fans and came at the cost of role-playing. It likely won them some new customers, but it also lost them some customers who didn't like the changes. Whether it was a net gain or loss is something we won't ever know.
Like it or not, Mass Effect is not an RPG. It is TPS RPG, and ME1 didn't do either of those very well. Yes, it was a better RPG in terms of some roleplaying aspects, but it was far worse in terms of its shooting. To achieve equilibrium, sacrifices had to be made. You might not like it, but the meat of the gameplay is combat, so that's where BioWare had to focus.
I would be thrilled if the Next Mass Effect improved its roleplaying aspects, but I can only say this because I know its foundation is strong. The basic principles of RPG and TPS are there and polished to a good degree. As long as BioWare can maintain that solid balance, I'll be happy, and so will consumers.
Besides, I can prove to you that more people like ME2 over ME1. That doesn't necessarily prove that they specifically liked the leveling more, but it doesn't seem like it was a huge problem.
Sorry - I find it pretty hard to believe that you can present a scientifically valid survey.
And, as you said, it still wouldn't address the reasons for anyone's preference of one over the other. They were very different games in a lot of ways.
Sure, but who would do that? It's the game's job to apply the limits not mine. Without specific instruction, I doubt many player would even think to do this. The mechanics of a game should try to steer player's towards the most fun way to play.
The better question is who wouldn't use whatever mechanics a game provides in whatever way is most satisfying for them?
I'd guess that most people do that without even thinking much about it.
I never advocated the P/R system. In fact, I think it should be removed entirely. However, I'm still no fan of charm/intimidate. By separating the two, BioWare still urges the player to align themselves on a single side, and I don't like the idea of boiling down persuasion to a stat. The act of speaking should require artful navigation of dialog, active convincing, and not simple percent checking.
All game mechanics are abstractions of real world interactions.
DAO has a system where players can invest points in a Coercion skill that then provides opportunities to use Intimidation (which is based on the character's dominant combat stat) or Persuasion (based on the character's cunning stat). No, I'm not advocating that system - only pointing out that there are ways to address persuasion skills independent of moral alignment.
I'll admit, ME1 is better in this regard. Charm/intimidate probably shouldn't have been removed for straight P/R, but its absence doesn't totally ruin ME2. It was a minor stat the was rarely used. I can see how this one change makes ME2-3 worse, but not that much worse.
The P/R implementation in ME2 takes a pretty heavy toll on role-play. How much that damages the overall experience depends on the player's interests and focus.
In this case, I was specifically talking about balancing combat. Heavily leaning on skills and attributes like strength, agility, and accuracy in active combat can make things convoluted or downright unfair.
I'm still not quite sure where you were going with this.
Aren't those essentially the only two? Again, I agree that ME1 was better in this regard, but I don't remember it leaning heavily on passive skill for major decisions.
No, there were others. I'm not sure it's relevant, though, since I'm more interested in the mechanic itself than how it was applied in a single game.
Again, I agree. Interrupts should be a bit more obvious about their effects, but this is BioWare we're talking about here. Since the creation of the dialog wheel, they've never been very good with telegraphing the meaning of choices.
Ever since they started going more cinematic, they seem to want players to be surprised at what the PC does - going so far as to specifically write dialogue wheel paraphrases to obfuscate what the PC will actually say / do. I guess they see that as part of the entertainment.
Like it or not, Mass Effect is not an RPG. It is TPS RPG, and ME1 didn't do either of those very well. Yes, it was a better RPG in terms of some roleplaying aspects, but it was far worse in terms of its shooting. To achieve equilibrium, sacrifices had to be made. You might not like it, but the meat of the gameplay is combat, so that's where BioWare had to focus.
It's been promoted as an action RPG - I see that wiki lists it in a sub-genre called RPS (role-playing shooter).
I would be thrilled if the Next Mass Effect improved its roleplaying aspects, but I can only say this because I know its foundation is strong. The basic principles of RPG and TPS are there and polished to a good degree. As long as BioWare can maintain that solid balance, I'll be happy, and so will consumers.
I'm looking for restoration of role-play, and the return of Mako-style exploration lends me some hope.
If they continue with the cinematic railroad and handholding as presented in ME3, I'm likely finished with the franchise.
Not let them downgrade the gun's post-ME1.
Not let the SR-1 be destroyed but severely damaged(it would be under repair until ME3 start) in ME2 with a actual warship given to Shepard untill ME3 by Cerberus.
Shepard would be a double agent in Cerberus, because having not died he'd need a reason to be with them, so he could operate in the Terminus System without the Alliance being involved.
ME3 I'd only change to be able to re-aquire squdmates, like be able to get Wrex or Grunt(only one) if you saved Eve & cured the Genophage, be able to get a Geth if you chose to side with them or caused the Geth & Quarian truce etc. etc.
Aren't those essentially the only two? Again, I agree that ME1 was better in this regard, but I don't remember it leaning heavily on passive skill for major decisions.
I can only think of 6. There's those 2, the Warlord the Alliance sends you after, Father Kyle, the warehuse goons in Fist's club, and the biotic's holding the senator hostage. I count the last two as half's sice you have to fight before you reach them, so they just add 1 instance.
I actually just replayed ME1 and ME2. I do love the games as they are, but in my mind there are always little tweaks that would make me feel satisfied with the presentation, and below my solution to the series endgame that could have made everybody happy, and allowed for ME:Next to still exist in the same galaxy.
ME1:
ME2:
ME3:
At this point, it’s just prevention of alienating player’s choices to allow the universe to exist in another game in the franchise to follow such as ME:Next.
Either way, reapers destroyed, Earth nearly completely devastated, relays are heavily damaged, galaxy as we know it in shambles. Players can look forward to some semblance of a galaxy they know and love.
Enter ME:Next where we need to work with other races to survive together under some new threat that begins to move in to our region of space. Or upon repairing the Charon relay, travelling through it lands the citadel races in a hot mess of a situation. Speculation at this point.
Finally, move the next game ahead in the time line just far enough where we don’t have any character connection to the original trilogy. If you’ve played any Star Wars game, I’m sure you get tired of bumping into Chewbacca every 5 minutes. Yeesh. Also, carrying choices forward in perpetuity is an ever increasing programming beast, and there’s just no budget possible for that amount of parallel timelines created by players.
Retour en haut