891 réponses à ce sujet

[capn233]

Higher DPS weapons lack any punch if not utilized with a decent Ammo power. The Predator is all but useless, and the Carnifex while more useful has a low capacity. Simply using powers is a better way to go than rely on these devices.

Both ME1 and ME3 offer more versatility in choice in abilities. Options are a good thing.

Sentinel had to re-activate Tech Armor on any re-load (and any Ammo powers in use); a factor as to why I prefer Engn for a non Soldier class.

Adept is average at best in ME2; much more capable in ME3 whether it is played correctly or not....

Etc. ME2 falls down on RP, and mechanics; both other games are better. It simply has a decent Dirty Dozen tale with which to more Followers.

 

1. With respect, this is completely wrong.  The DPS against protections in ME2 comes from the multipliers in the weapons themselves.  Ammo damage becomes a near trivial aspect of weapon damage (except on AR's) since ammo damage is not affected by weapon upgrades or nearly any other weapon damage bonus whatsoever.  Ammo damage does get range penalties though.  That is why the best ammo powers are the ones that provide CC.

 

2. Not really.  In ME3 there are so many talent points that an end game build is nearly always the same for every single character, so what choice are we talking about?  In reality you get one extra power that you don't need since by and large the metagame turns every power into just Primer and Detonator.  Having three ranks with evolutions doesn't really matter when something like Warp only makes sense to level a single way 99.999% of the time (Detonate, Expose, Pierce).

 

3. Alright

 

4. How is ME3 Adept relatively stronger than ME2 Adept when it has absolutely no advantage whatsover in ME3 relative to Vanguard or Sentinel?  A lot of people say the same thing and it makes absolutely no sense.  At least in ME2 you have the best CC of any class (which matters in ME2 and does not matter whatseover in ME3), and it has the most versatile area damage (self detonating warp combos which no other class could do).

 

The real reason that ME3 Adept seems in any way stronger than ME2 Adept is because ME3 is flat out easier than ME2.  It is practically just button mashing without regard to which power is used when.  One of the best things about ME2 Adept was that it actually had some nuance to the power decision tree unlike a couple other classes, and unlike basically every class in ME3.

 

5.  ME2 may have less role-playing content.  Most of whatever was gone were things people complained about in ME1.  With respect to gameplay mechanics, ME3 is practically the same except that the changes they made were nearly all poor with the possible exception of movement changes.

[UpUpAway]

As an infiltrator you really had to mix in the pistol just as much and save the SR for non-husk armor/bosses. Also power cells completely refils ammo for all weapons outside of the limited heavy weapon quantities. The extra ammo armor gauntlets really come in handy too.

 

That reminds me... If I have used multiple weapons during a fight and I encounter a power cell, I'll quickly go through a do a reload on all the weapons I've used before grabbing the power cell... so that they do fill completely.  If you have a partial clip in, would won't get the full benefit.

[Pasquale1234]

I have frequently equipped the Incisor... and I have less issues running out of ammo with it than I do with the Mantis.

 
Well, if you'd like to compare, here are the numbers:
 
The Incisor has a base damage of 53.6/round and a capacity of 30.  53.6 x 30 = 1608 max damage with full ammo load.
 
The Mantis has a base damage of 263.1 and a capacity of 9.  263.1 x 9 = 2367.9 max damage with full ammo load.
 
The Mantis is capable of doing nearly 150% of the damage the Incisor can do when both weapons start with full clips.
 
Or put another way:
The Incisor fires 3-shot rounds, capable of doing 160.8 damage per, and with its 15/30 round capacity, it can be fired 10 times before it runs out of ammo.
 
The Mantis fires single rounds, capable of doing 263.1 damage per, and with its 1/9 round capacity, it can be fired 9 times before it runs out of ammo.

There's also the fact that you might not land all 3 of the Incisor's rounds on a moving target.
 
I really wanted to use the Incisor, but just wasn't getting enough bang for the thermal clip expenditure.  I thought that it should have either done more damage per round or had a higher clip capacity to make it more viable.
 

As an infiltrator you really had to mix in the pistol just as much and save the SR for non-husk armor/bosses.

Yeah, I noticed. I'm not a big fan of gameplay systems that try to force a playstyle.

[Fixers0]

The real reason that ME3 Adept seems in any way stronger than ME2 Adept is because ME3 is flat out easier than ME2.  It is practically just button mashing without regard to which power is used when.  One of the best things about ME2 Adept was that it actually had some nuance to the power decision tree unlike a couple other classes, and unlike basically every class in ME3.

 

You'll have to explain that one to me, to me Adept in ME2 was just grinding and grinding, more than any other class really. The combat oriented classes got it right in ME2 in terms of skills and abilities, though the were consquently nerfed hard in ME3, especially the soldier.

[Oni Changas]

I dunno ME2's Predator was pretty decent. Obviously the other two available pistols were way better but it wasn't as impotent and ME3's.

 

I'm gonna disagree on ME3 adepts being "button mashing". LMFAO ME3 adept is a straight up savage. All you need is Reave as a bonus power and cluster grenades or Shockwave. ME2 adepts were held back a lot by shields. Pull was useless if a target had any protection, as was throw. Whereas ME3 warp+thow = bye shields/barriers.

 

While I agree with Capn that ME2 has the best gameplay aside from the athritis-inflicted Shepard . I liked the slw, more tactically based gameplay as far as breaking down enemies' protections then moving in to finish and the fact that squaddies were more fun to plan attacks with as opposed to ME3's sort of free for all where everyone can just rush in with 0 ****s given. I want that feeling of careful squad placement back where you had to use flanking maneuvers and and ambushes to keep from being overwhelmed.

[Oni Changas]

 
Well, if you'd like to compare, here are the numbers:
 
The Incisor has a base damage of 53.6/round and a capacity of 30.  53.6 x 30 = 1608 max damage with full ammo load.
 
The Mantis has a base damage of 263.1 and a capacity of 9.  263.1 x 9 = 2367.9 max damage with full ammo load.
 
The Mantis is capable of doing nearly 150% of the damage the Incisor can do when both weapons start with full clips.
 
Or put another way:
The Incisor fires 3-shot rounds, capable of doing 160.8 damage per, and with its 15/30 round capacity, it can be fired 10 times before it runs out of ammo.
 
The Mantis fires single rounds, capable of doing 263.1 damage per, and with its 1/9 round capacity, it can be fired 9 times before it runs out of ammo.
 
I really wanted to use the Incisor, but just wasn't getting enough bang for the thermal clip expenditure.  I thought that it should have either done more damage per round or had a higher clip capacity to make it more viable.
 

Yeah, I noticed. I'm not a big fan of gameplay systems that try to force a playstyle

I've always preferred the Incisor on Garrus/Thane/Zaeed. They wreck everything with that gun. You could almost have them complete Haestrom (Garrus and Zaeed) as a duo. The Viper was the best because it did good damage, shot fast, and was very accurate. It's probably what the Valiant from ME3 is based on, just with a smaller clip.

[Pasquale1234]

I've always preferred the Incisor on Garrus/Thane/Zaeed. They wreck everything with that gun. You could almost have them complete Haestrom (Garrus and Zaeed) as a duo.

Yeah, and I'm jelly of them - lol. They have infinite ammo.

I've no rational, logical reason, but for some reason the Incisor just really appealed to me, and I was frustrated that I couldn't make it work as my primary / exclusive weapon.

[capn233]

You'll have to explain that one to me, to me Adept in ME2 was just grinding and grinding, more than any other class really. The combat oriented classes got it right in ME2 in terms of skills and abilities, though the were consquently nerfed hard in ME3, especially the soldier.

 

Since I don't know why you think it is a grinding class, I can't explain anything about that.

 

With respect to actually having some semblance of a decision tree, it comes down to cooldown efficiency for the most part.  Singularity should not be used to lift things, that is what Pull is for.  Singularity should stick elites (the only real CC against protections in the base game of ME2 incidentally).  You should not warp bomb all the things because pull -> heavy throw is more efficient for single targets.  Etc.

 

I'm gonna disagree on ME3 adepts being "button mashing". LMFAO ME3 adept is a straight up savage. All you need is Reave as a bonus power and cluster grenades or Shockwave. ME2 adepts were held back a lot by shields. Pull was useless if a target had any protection, as was throw. Whereas ME3 warp+thow = bye shields/barriers.

 

That is what I would describe as button mashing.  Hit Reave over and over without respect to enemy type or defense layer.  This isn't restricted to Adept, this is a problem with all the classes in ME3 since runaway combos screwed up the metagame.

 

Adept is weaker than most classes against protections in ME2 (Sentinel is nearly exactly the same as Adept v protections).  Of course it is one of the strongest against targets on health, targets have more health than defense hit points nearly universally, and it has the two best weapon classes for dealing with defenses at the start of the game.

 

All of the classes should have a weakness, there should not be a class that is good at everything.  Every class being good at everything is poor design.

[Oni Changas]

I don't think our definition of button mashing lines up then. Cause if you're using a specific power to achieve an end, wouldn't you actively have to have some semblance of cohesion? You can shoot a banshee to death; is that button mashing too? I can see what you're saying, but all nearly all powers/weapons can be "button mashed" to kill enemies. Some moreso than others.

 

I do agree that some weaknesses should be reintroduced and in regard to the adept/shield problem, pull and lash should be combined to give it some use as a viable power other than snatching guardian shields and pulling husks.

 

Perhaps Adepts should have shorter overall cooldown but stronger powers? Biotics having universal cd (outside of grenades). Just a couple of ideas floating in my head.

 

Obviously Mass Effect needs strong enemies again and weapons must be reigned in to have positives and negatives.

[capn233]

I don't think our definition of button mashing lines up then. Cause if you're using a specific power to achieve an end, wouldn't you actively have to have some semblance of cohesion? You can shoot a banshee to death; is that button mashing too? I can see what you're saying, but all nearly all powers/weapons can be "button mashed" to kill enemies. Some moreso than others.

 

I am using button mashing to describe using whatever power repeatedly without any real decision needing to be made.  Reave in ME3 (and an extent ME2) is a perfect example.  Put Reave on any character and just press it over and over.  You basically only need to ask yourself if it is off cooldown.  It primes, it detonates, it gives you DR, it does damage, it staggers.

 

Looking at vanilla ME3 Adept (or really most vanilla classes in ME3), there isn't much more nuance to choosing powers.  There is only a mild difference in power between an Adept who only uses Throw over and over and over again compared to one who switches between Warp and Throw, assuming the squad is controlled appropriately.  All the extra powers are largely fluff.  Singularity is terrible in SP.  Pull does basically what Warp does, except a little faster and not to protections.  Grenades detonate, basically like Throw does except they are limited.  Shockwave doesn't do anything better than Throw.  The extra choices are basically fake choices.

 

Weapon fire is distinct, generally speaking, in that you actually have to aim the weapon more accurately than powers, and you are nominally limited by the amount of times you can press the trigger in the whole mission.  You could use powers an infinite amount of time if you want, there are only the time constraints of the real world to limit the actual number.

 

edit:  Almost forgot to mention that if I was to agree in any small way that weapon fire is button mashing it would be to say that the transition from ME2 to ME3 destroyed the roles of the weapon classes such that there is not any practical difference in using a pistol or an SMG (for example) against any target or any protection.  Just pick a god tier gun (of which there are plenty in vanilla ME3) and go to work.  Shieldgate and armor damage reduction were not effective in separating "rapid fire" and "slow firing" weapons.

[UpUpAway]

 
Well, if you'd like to compare, here are the numbers:
 
The Incisor has a base damage of 53.6/round and a capacity of 30.  53.6 x 30 = 1608 max damage with full ammo load.
 
The Mantis has a base damage of 263.1 and a capacity of 9.  263.1 x 9 = 2367.9 max damage with full ammo load.
 
The Mantis is capable of doing nearly 150% of the damage the Incisor can do when both weapons start with full clips.
 
Or put another way:
The Incisor fires 3-shot rounds, capable of doing 160.8 damage per, and with its 15/30 round capacity, it can be fired 10 times before it runs out of ammo.
 
The Mantis fires single rounds, capable of doing 263.1 damage per, and with its 1/9 round capacity, it can be fired 9 times before it runs out of ammo.

There's also the fact that you might not land all 3 of the Incisor's rounds on a moving target.
 
I really wanted to use the Incisor, but just wasn't getting enough bang for the thermal clip expenditure.  I thought that it should have either done more damage per round or had a higher clip capacity to make it more viable.
 

Yeah, I noticed. I'm not a big fan of gameplay systems that try to force a playstyle.

 

I know it doesn't make sense mathematically and I can't explain it myself... but I just seem to run out of ammo more frequently with the Mantis than the Incisor.  Perhaps it's that, on normal difficulty, it still does enough damage to take down an enemy with 1 pull of the trigger and it has that 1 extra pull (10 shots vs. 9)... and maybe sometimes I'm getting two guys down (if my squad has already done some damage).  Don't know, maybe on insanity it would be quite a different story.  It's been long while since I've done an insanity run with an infiltrator.

[Elhanan]

1. With respect, this is completely wrong.  The DPS against protections in ME2 comes from the multipliers in the weapons themselves.  Ammo damage becomes a near trivial aspect of weapon damage (except on AR's) since ammo damage is not affected by weapon upgrades or nearly any other weapon damage bonus whatsoever.  Ammo damage does get range penalties though.  That is why the best ammo powers are the ones that provide CC.

 

2. Not really.  In ME3 there are so many talent points that an end game build is nearly always the same for every single character, so what choice are we talking about?  In reality you get one extra power that you don't need since by and large the metagame turns every power into just Primer and Detonator.  Having three ranks with evolutions doesn't really matter when something like Warp only makes sense to level a single way 99.999% of the time (Detonate, Expose, Pierce).

 

3. Alright

 

4. How is ME3 Adept relatively stronger than ME2 Adept when it has absolutely no advantage whatsover in ME3 relative to Vanguard or Sentinel?  A lot of people say the same thing and it makes absolutely no sense.  At least in ME2 you have the best CC of any class (which matters in ME2 and does not matter whatseover in ME3), and it has the most versatile area damage (self detonating warp combos which no other class could do).

 

The real reason that ME3 Adept seems in any way stronger than ME2 Adept is because ME3 is flat out easier than ME2.  It is practically just button mashing without regard to which power is used when.  One of the best things about ME2 Adept was that it actually had some nuance to the power decision tree unlike a couple other classes, and unlike basically every class in ME3.

 

5.  ME2 may have less role-playing content.  Most of whatever was gone were things people complained about in ME1.  With respect to gameplay mechanics, ME3 is practically the same except that the changes they made were nearly all poor with the possible exception of movement changes.

 

1 - OK; will re-phrase: the Predator is ineffective, and the Carniflex runs out of ammo too quickly. For classes restricted to starting the game with pistols only, power use is a much better option.

 

2 - In ME2, the 4th rank offers two options. In ME3, ranks 4-6 offer two options. More options means a more versatile game for the Player.

 

4 - ME3 Adept can kill so quickly it can break the combat simulator in the Citadel DLC. In ME2, the Adept struggles a lot more; weaker than Engn or Sentinel.

 

5- From this gamer's POV, the RP aspects improved in ME3 from ME2, though ME1 remains the best, IMO. Mechanics are improved (am disabled, and can observe a difference), and am not locked into fewer ability choices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You must be wasting a lot of ammo by missing your target or firing your weapon when you don't need to. As I said, I had no problem. Maybe its because I don't use my weapon all the time, but use the powers available for the class I'm playing. Or maybe my Shepard is just that good of a shot that she doesn't have to worry about running out of ammo.

You didn't read what I said at all. If I was short even one round, I wanted to go back to the stockpile I knew was there, but I couldn't do that because the doors behind me all magically locked as soon as I passed through them.

Regardless of how good a shot I am, that's bad design.

ME3 solved this by putting so much ammo in every room that there was no incentive to go back.

In ME2, I was using a class I didn't enjoy because I wanted a sniper rifle. And I pause to aim, so I don't miss a lot, but I didn't use many powers because I didn't like them. And sniper rifles consume tons of ammo.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I really don't get your issue with the suggestion to just not allow the player to go do side quests between stealing the Normandy and going to Ilos. It really doesn't affect any of your role playing... it would just make stealing the Normandy part of the final mission itself.

It's not like anyone would use full player agency to, say, leave Ilos mid-mission to go do a side quest and expect to return to the battle just wherever you left it off - that is, I don't hear you or anyone else asking for that level of freedom.

Even if we don't use it, having the option makes the world seem more real. Maybe the mission resolves itself if I leave halfway through. Maybe I fail it. But I'd still like to be able to leave.

And imagine the story options then. We could get word of other urgent matters whole we'rein the middle of a mission. We could finish this one first, possible them making the other worse by being late, or we could abandon this one in the hopes of succeeding elsewhere.

So what if that Ilos mission begins with stealing the Normandy.

So every other time we've piloted the Normandy we could go where we wanted, but suddenly we can't now?

I'd rather just see a chance for negative consequences if we delay. But I don't always want negative consequences for delaying. Those shouldn't be predictable. Sometimes the stupid longshot should work.

My point is that it's all a matter of degree... some writer agency is necessary for them to maintain any sort of coherent story. If you don't want to write the story yourself, you have to leave them some ability to "direct" the story in different ways. Allowing them to do some pacing is one of those ways... and sometimes it's better than no pacing at all.

I don't write the story, and they don't write the story. The story is created by the combination of my choices and their world. Writing the story is a collaborative effort.

As for your inability to take any sort of paraphrase and make an educated guess... that's your issue. Most people can.

An educated guess is still a guess. Full text dialogue options gave us certainty, and that is the standard to which I will hold the paraphrases.

The paraphrases will be acceptable only when we can predict the resultant dialogue word for word with no chance of error.

As for, sometimes, the paraphrases not being "good paraphrases" that's something that I imagine Bioware continues to work on and improve. I would not enjoy there being full typed-text for every sentence choice the player makes on behalf of the PC... too much reading overall.

It would make the game go a lot faster, because then we wouldn't need to wait for the line to be spoken.

Reading > Speech. Every time.

If I want to read a book... I'll read a book. (I also hate lengthy, lengthy codexes in game that provide a bunch of unnecessary and often completely unused background information. I much prefer a separate Wiki for that sort of thing.)

Text is my preferred means of consuming all information.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I may have confused that with a trained but no skill points spent Sniper Rifle, then. Without scope they're useless as the spread is the size of the screen.

At close range that's still pretty valuable. If I'm in an enclosed space with an enemy, I still want the sniper rifle.

I used the sniper rifle pretty much exclusively throughout all 3 games.

[themikefest]

You didn't read what I said at all. If I was short even one round, I wanted to go back to the stockpile I knew was there, but I couldn't do that because the doors behind me all magically locked as soon as I passed through them.

Oh I read what you posted. You still wasted your shots or at the very least didn't make them count.
 

Regardless of how good a shot I am, that's bad design.

No its not. If you can't make your shots count to get the most damage possible when firing at the target, that's your problem
 

ME3 solved this by putting so much ammo in every room that there was no incentive to go back.

So you just like holding the trigger the whole time without worrying about running out of ammo?
 

In ME2, I was using a class I didn't enjoy because I wanted a sniper rifle. And I pause to aim, so I don't miss a lot, but I didn't use many powers because I didn't like them. And sniper rifles consume tons of ammo.

If you didn't like the class, stop playing and try a class you might like. No one forced you to continue to play that class. I rarely used a sniper rifle in ME2, but the few times I did on whatever mission, I had no problem with ammo.

[Elhanan]

Oh I read what you posted. You still wasted your shots or at the very least didn't make them count.
 
No its not. If you can't make your shots count to get the most damage possible when firing at the target, that's your problem
 
So you just like holding the trigger the whole time without worrying about running out of ammo?
 
If you didn't like the class, stop playing and try a class you might like. No one forced you to continue to play that class. I rarely used a sniper rifle in ME2, but the few times I did on whatever mission, I had no problem with ammo.

Whether one wasted shots or not, keeping max ammo supplies makes sense. However, having to police the field after a battle before moving on to the next ruins any sense of urgency. It is poor design.

Also, the irritating mechanic of cutting off falling back to look for anything makes for a frustrating session when one may need that next weapon or armor upgrade, as well as ammo. At least in ME3, one could then purchase missed gear from the shops.

Actually, I finally tried a few classes after Infiltrator; all but Soldier and Vanguard. And while the Engineer was surprisingly able to survive Insanity difficulty, the Sentinel was annoying due to the Tech Armor re-loading glitch, and the Adept was less able to handle themselves in battle than either of the other two games.

[nfi42]

Whether one wasted shots or not, keeping max ammo supplies makes sense. However, having to police the field after a battle before moving on to the next ruins any sense of urgency. It is poor design.

Also, the irritating mechanic of cutting off falling back to look for anything makes for a frustrating session when one may need that next weapon or armor upgrade, as well as ammo. At least in ME3, one could then purchase missed gear from the shops.

Actually, I finally tried a few classes after Infiltrator; all but Soldier and Vanguard. And while the Engineer was surprisingly able to survive Insanity difficulty, the Sentinel was annoying due to the Tech Armor re-loading glitch, and the Adept was less able to handle themselves in battle than either of the other two games.

 

 

Blocking access to where you've been is quite common in linear games. 

 

You wont have this problem in open world MEA,  at least I hope.

[themikefest]

Whether one wasted shots or not, keeping max ammo supplies makes sense. However, having to police the field after a battle before moving on to the next ruins any sense of urgency. It is poor design.

Never had the problem where I had to go back looking around for ammo. I just pick up ammo that is dropped by the baddies that I killed as I move forward. If I do run low, I switch to another weapon.
 

Also, the irritating mechanic of cutting off falling back to look for anything makes for a frustrating session when one may need that next weapon or armor upgrade, as well as ammo. At least in ME3, one could then purchase missed gear from the shops.

I never worried about missing an upgrade. If I did, it was most likely one I didn't need
 

Actually, I finally tried a few classes after Infiltrator; all but Soldier and Vanguard. And while the Engineer was surprisingly able to survive Insanity difficulty, the Sentinel was annoying due to the Tech Armor re-loading glitch, and the Adept was less able to handle themselves in battle than either of the other two games.

I had no problem with adept. Its my second most used class in ME2

[UpUpAway]

Even if we don't use it, having the option makes the world seem more real. Maybe the mission resolves itself if I leave halfway through. Maybe I fail it. But I'd still like to be able to leave.

And imagine the story options then. We could get word of other urgent matters whole we'rein the middle of a mission. We could finish this one first, possible them making the other worse by being late, or we could abandon this one in the hopes of succeeding elsewhere.
So every other time we've piloted the Normandy we could go where we wanted, but suddenly we can't now?

 

IMO, taking player agency to the extremes you want does not make the "world seem more real" since no Commander ranked soldier IRL has the level of agency to just pull up stakes in the middle of battle and leave on his/her own decision.  That sort of decision is made by the people who outrank him/her and, to a certain degree, by the enemy (who may well lock down various paths of retreat).  They might radio for an evac, but the decision as to whether or not they'd get one is not theirs to make.

 

As I said, we're arguing degrees here and your insistence on one extreme (total player agency) is absolutely no better for an RPG than the other extreme of no player agency.  With different sub-genres of RPG, differing amounts of player agency are ideal and others are necessary compromises that will likely change as the technology supporting them improves.  Also, the developer's ability to provide more varied features in a game varies depending on that developer's financial resources (that is, the amount budgeted towards making the game).

 

You still have your facts wrong about ME1 and ME3.  As I've said repeatedly, in ME1 you could not just go wherever you wanted.  Certain clusters did not unlocked until after you had completed certain main missions.  The Maroon Sea, for example, did not open up until after you completed Feros; the Styx Theta cluster did not open up until after you completed Noveria, Luna did not open up until after you hit Level 20; Nonuel and Chohe (planets) did not have missions on them until you reached a certain level of P/R points; if you did not do Therum before doing Virmire, you had no choice but to do it before going back to the Citadel (where you stole the Normandy); and after you had completed all of Feros, Noveria, Therum, and Virmire, the only destination you could pick at that point was to go back to the Citadel to allow the Normandy to be stolen (that is, once you completed these 4 main missions, you could not choose to do a bunch for side missions before having to steal the Normandy... but you could choose to do them all after stealing the Normandy without any consequences).  Since it is the stealing of the Normandy that drives the urgency of the race against time (i.e. we have the information that Saren is then headed directly to Ilos) this ability to do the side missions at this point is completely illogical... no matter what sort of Shepard you want to role play.  Giving the players too much agency at this particular point in the game IS want makes ME1 a poor RPG design.

 

In ME3, you could absolutely still go to different parts of the galaxy, changing up the order of the missions, after they initially unlocked (until the game entered that "ending mission" phase (which began with Chronos).  There were some consequences - completely in line with your statement that "we could finish this one first possibly then making the other worse by being late, or we could abandon this one in the hopes of succeeding elsewhere.  In addition, there were some significant dialogue changes that occurred if you did flip around the order of the missions in ME3... which kept them more relevant to the PCs character being role played than the side missions in ME1.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Blocking access to where you've been is quite common in linear games.

And I understand why it's done; it allows the game to discard that last area from memory.

But it damages the credibility of the world.

[nfi42]

And I understand why it's done; it allows the game to discard that last area from memory.

But it damages the credibility of the world.

 

Yes,  which is one reason open world games and streaming in assets is popular nowadays.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Oh I read what you posted. You still wasted your shots or at the very least didn't make them count.

I didn't pick and choose which weapon to use to minimize how much ammo would be consumed, no. I used a sniper rifle, because I was playing a character who used a sniper rifle.

I don't play games. I play characters.

No its not. If you can't make your shots count to get the most damage possible when firing at the target, that's your problem

It is my character's skill that should matter, not mine.

So you just like holding the trigger the whole time without worrying about running out of ammo?

I didn't use automatic weapons. I only used aniper rifles.

If you didn't like the class, stop playing and try a class you might like. No one forced you to continue to play that class. I rarely used a sniper rifle in ME2, but the few times I did on whatever mission, I had no problem with ammo.

Such a class didn't exist. I wanted to play an Engineer with a sniper rifle, as I could in both ME1 and ME3.

I also went into the game expecting to be able to engage enemies at longer range (as I could in ME1), but that wasn't the case, so my character design just didn't work well. If I'd replayed the game I would have designed my second character differently to avoid those problems, but the game was awful, so I wasn't going to replay it. The combat was tedious, the interrupts were character-breaking, the paraphrases had somehow managed to get worse, and the definitions of Paragon and Renegade were no longer well documented. ME2 was a terrible game that caused me to abandon the series. I had no interest in ME3, and didn't even consider playing it at release. I only player it later (much later - after DAI) because I wanted to see why people hated the endings so much (I still don't know - the endings were fine).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes, which is one reason open world games and streaming in assets is popular nowadays.

Yes.

But games that didn't do that still warrant criticism.

[capn233]

Never had the problem where I had to go back looking around for ammo. I just pick up ammo that is dropped by the baddies that I killed as I move forward. If I do run low, I switch to another weapon.
 

I never worried about missing an upgrade. If I did, it was most likely one I didn't need
 

I had no problem with adept. Its my second most used class in ME2

 

Pretty much all of this, although I always wanted to get all the upgrades even if I didn't need them.

 

The main issue here seems to be people stubbornly refusing to evaluate their tactics and change them when needed.