In ME2 though, I'm not sure if you have enough minerals from both the start and whatever you acquire from containers in missions to get all the upgrades necessary to save all squad members. I guess if you ignore most if not all upgrades applied to Shepard and the weapons.
I've done it several times without anyone dying. All I did is upgrade the ship, my weapon, shields and health
Interesting thread
Don't know if someone has already said it, but am I the only one who is kind of bothered by the fact that you can see "bullets" in both ME2 nad ME3? And they even travel slowly for a microscopic particle that's supossed to be accelerated to a very, very high speed to make damage!!
Btw, if there's some kind of "introduce yourself" post, I've not been able to find it, sorry
Interesting thread
Don't know if someone has already said it, but am I the only one who is kind of bothered by the fact that you can see "bullets" in both ME2 nad ME3? And they even travel slowly for a microscopic particle that's supossed to be accelerated to a very, very high speed to make damage!!
Btw, if there's some kind of "introduce yourself" post, I've not been able to find it, sorry
BioWare made bullets show up for the same reason that the military uses tracer rounds and Star Wars shows its laser pulses: humans need reference points when shooting and it also looks cool.
BioWare made bullets show up for the same reason that the military uses tracer rounds and Star Wars shows its laser pulses: humans need reference points when shooting and it also looks cool.
I'm not so sure about the need for references, I mean, that's what cross-hairs are for, and in my experience (crysis games allow you to don't have them, not sure if there are more games like that) they aren't really needed. Besides, the slow travel speed makes hitting moving targets more difficult, which now that I think of it it's probably what bothers me the most.
I'm not so sure about the need for references, I mean, that's what cross-hairs are for, and in my experience (crysis games allow you to don't have them, not sure if there are more games like that) they aren't really needed. Besides, the slow travel speed makes hitting moving targets more difficult, which now that I think of it it's probably what bothers me the most.
It's probably more about figuring out who's shooting you than whom you're shooting at. And they may be more helpful than you think. Some game elements may not seem important consciously, but even a minor bullet effects could make the difference subconsciously. Regardless, there's got to be some reason that the devs implemented tracable rounds, as the alternative (hit scan) is much more simple to implement and easier computationally.
If nothing else, the pulses make the game more visually interesting.
Wow. I though I'd seen the last of that idiotic chart.
("Idiotic" only applies if it's supposed to be a serious analysis. As propaganda, it's not bad.)
That chart always makes me laugh in that it lists Mass Effect 2 has having the most 'plot' quests.
Yeah....NO.
That whole game is mostly side quests. The Collectors are barely in it.
I'm not so sure about the need for references, I mean, that's what cross-hairs are for, and in my experience (crysis games allow you to don't have them, not sure if there are more games like that) they aren't really needed. Besides, the slow travel speed makes hitting moving targets more difficult, which now that I think of it it's probably what bothers me the most.
With all the hit scan weapons (which is most of them) you are only seeing a trace. The computer does the hit resolution as soon as you click the mouse.
It's probably more about figuring out who's shooting you than whom you're shooting at. And they may be more helpful than you think. Some game elements may not seem important consciously, but even a minor bullet effects could make the difference subconsciously. Regardless, there's got to be some reason that the devs implemented tracable rounds, as the alternative (hit scan) is much more simple to implement and easier computationally.
If nothing else, the pulses make the game more visually interesting.
I'd say the reason is because they thought it'd be more visually appealing (which if most weapons are hitscan as Malanek says seems to be the main reason), and still, it bugs me.
In ME (1) there is a bluish "smoke" you can use to trace who's shooting you, and you can see if you've hit your target since there also a bullet-impact effect ,all while bullets are barely, if not noticeable at all.
In the end, I realize I can live with visible bullets as long as they travel as fast as in the first ME
With all the hit scan weapons (which is most of them) you are only seeing a trace. The computer does the hit resolution as soon as you click the mouse.
mmm really? I could swear I saw targets dodging bullets in both ME2 and ME3
I suppose I'll have to replay them 
In any case, I'd prefer faster traces anyway
mmm really? I could swear I saw targets dodging bullets in both ME2 and ME3
I suppose I'll have to replay them
In any case, I'd prefer faster traces anyway
Yes. There are two basic types of weapons though which could lead to confusion. Hitscan or Projectile. Most are hitscan weapons (all the bullet ones) but there are a group of other weapons that fire projectiles and calculate hit and damage on resolution. Projectile weapons included things like the Geth Plasma Shotgun, Kishock Harpoon Gun, Venom, Falcon etc
As an aside all projectile weapons ignore armor but couldn't penetrate cover. So Armor piercing mods were useless on them. And there were also a couple of other weapons like the Javelin and Crusader which had a slight shot delay mechanisms built in but they were still hitscan weapons.
The traces on hitscan weapons were completely cosmetic but did tell you what your teammates were shooting at. They were useful and, imo, were worth having in there.
The traces on hitscan weapons were completely cosmetic but did tell you what your teammates were shooting at. They were useful and, imo, were worth having in there.
I much prefer the air distortion effect of ME1 though, seemed more in line with the lore and they looked cooler too, the same way I prefer ME1 biotic effects over the ME2/ME3.
Back on topic, I think more accurate information on how weapons and powers work would be very welcome. To get it perfect isn't simple (and for lowest level you can visit the forums), but I think it could quite easily be a lot better than it is in ME3 and DAI.
Back on topic, I think more accurate information on how weapons and powers work would be very welcome. To get it perfect isn't simple (and for lowest level you can visit the forums), but I think it could quite easily be a lot better than it is in ME3 and DAI.
ME3 MP has a good balance. They should take that system and only tweak it a little for ME:A.
ME3 MP has a good balance. They should take that system and only tweak it a little for ME:A.
Do you think it was ok that most people thought equipping armor piercing mods on their projectile weapons was a good idea? Or trying to figure out if +10% damage was base damage or total damage? Or the average person not having a clue how damage from combos was calculated. Or exactly how different ammos interacted with different defenses. Experimenting with powers and discovering how they work is fine to a point, but I think things could have been clarified significantly from ME3.
Do you think it was ok that most people thought equipping armor piercing mods on their projectile weapons was a good idea? Or trying to figure out if +10% damage was base damage or total damage? Or the average person not having a clue how damage from combos was calculated. Or exactly how different ammos interacted with different defenses. Experimenting with powers and discovering how they work is fine to a point, but I think things could have been clarified significantly from ME3.
That doesn't change the fact that the current system works just fine. All you are asking for is a manual and better tool tips and descriptions. That's hardly a problem, is it? 
Removing the Mako. An asinine mistake of the sequels. A mistake that can't be made in this game because the beloved drunk rhino is already confirmed to be in the game (most likely, fully rehabilitated, for better or worse)
That doesn't change the fact that the current system works just fine. All you are asking for is a manual and better tool tips and descriptions. That's hardly a problem, is it?
Well that's all I was asking for. I do consider having inadequate or inaccurate information on how simple mechanics work a problem.
I just want the game from ME1, ME2 and 3 were dumbed down and simplified. ME1 was a cool FPS/RPG hybrid like System Shock 2.
I just want the game from ME1, ME2 and 3 were dumbed down and simplified. ME1 was a cool FPS/RPG hybrid like System Shock 2.
ME1 combat was tedious and not much fun.
I just want the game from ME1, ME2 and 3 were dumbed down and simplified. ME1 was a cool FPS/RPG hybrid like System Shock 2.
This is one my greatest pet peeve complaints. ME2/3 were not dumped down, they switched the system and the focus. Actually ME3 system and encounter design are by far the most complicated in ME trilogy and perhaps in Bioware history. That fact that you liked ME1 system more means nothing in regard was the system dumped down or not. Personal preference does not equal compiex system. No matter how many times it's dragged up for DAO and ME1.
Geez, comparing Mass Effect 1's gameplay to System Shock 2? For me at least, it's not even a contest. 
This is one my greatest pet peeve complaints. ME2/3 were not dumped down, they switched the system and the focus. Actually ME3 system and encounter design are by far the most complicated in ME trilogy and perhaps in Bioware history. That fact that you liked ME1 system more means nothing in regard was the system dumped down or not. Personal preference does not equal compiex system. No matter how many times it's dragged up for DAO and ME1.
The issue was that Mass Effect 1 never employed any kind of depth. It attempted to mask its extremely simplistic gameplay by overloading the player with inventory items (which were essentially inequalities). Likewise with the leveling system. Instead of 12 ranks per skill with 1% increase in damage, you now have 4 ranks with 3% weapon damage. In this instance, I consider that consolidating.
The issue was that Mass Effect 1 never employed any kind of depth. It attempted to mask its extremely simplistic gameplay by overloading the player with inventory items (which were essentially inequalities). Likewise with the leveling system. Instead of 12 ranks per skill with 1% increase in damage, you now have 4 ranks with 3% weapon damage. In this instance, I consider that consolidating.
For me, it's even slightly more than this. The system in ME1 was so simple that most of the classes really blended together in combat situations. Yeah, you could use perhaps a different skills, but aside from the ridiculously overpowered Adepts, the game, for me, felt the same with all the classes. I didn't truly pay attention to it when I first played ME1, but after playing ME2, it just came across so starkly for me.
ME2, while not necessarily the most complicated of systems, did manage to really build a solid base and create those different feelings for the classes, which allowed ME3 to really go to work on.
Removing the Mako. An asinine mistake of the sequels. A mistake that can't be made in this game because the beloved drunk rhino is already confirmed to be in the game (most likely, fully rehabilitated, for better or worse)
I always thought the Mako was a fun concept that just fell short on execution at times. I'm glad to see it return, as I thought it being cut was an overreaction to criticism.
I always thought the Mako was a fun concept that just fell short on execution at times. I'm glad to see it return, as I thought it being cut was an overreaction to criticism.
agreed. Instead of using criticism in a constructive manner, BW just throws the baby out with the bathwater. Hopefully they've learned something.
Retour en haut