Aucune réponse à ce sujet

[TuringPoint]

If you want to be a fanboy or a basher, please go elsewhere.  If you can't think of something nice to say, don't say anything - if you can't think of anything negative to say, don't say anything.  In fact, why don't we try to understand each other's perceptions, and work towards productive discussion?

One of the RPG elements I really dislike is looting. They reduced it in ME1 and I appreciated it. They reduced it further in ME2 and I liked it more. Looting is one of the most repetitive and dull RPG conventions ever conceived by man - my opinion. Let me try to dissect what's good and bad about the new system.

 I suspect that the way Bioware chose to represent weapon upgrades does some harm with people's percpetions of the systems, that you can't look at your weapon and know what upgrades it has on it.

Also, another negative is that you can't alter what upgrades it has on it.  It works out just fine that, for example, an SMG does better shield damage and a heavy pistol does more damage to armor.  

And then there is no trade-off for upgrading a weapon.  As little as I used certain upgrades on weapons or on armor, it was nice to know I was making certain tactical choices, was putting thought and ingenuity into my upgrades.  Now, in the sequel, resource management is the primary thing you are considering, which is great - and never has an RPG had such in depth resource management, that I can remember.  

I felt like the specific upgrades allowed through research were great, I don't think those should be taken out.  But I think opening up the ammo powers among the classes would go a long way towards improving this system, and making it less in comparison to the old ME1 system.  

Then you would have to give us back our overload, sabotage, and possibly dampening abilities.   You could also make the ammo powers more specialized, and give us a wider variety of them.

Anyway, those are my starting thoughts.