903 réponses à ce sujet

[Scarecrow_ES]

For Soruyao... about the original heat management system.



What the system did well was to give the player balanced and unique weapons that the player could use through an entire battle, but were limited in just how much damage could be done in a given amount of time by causing the weapon to become temporarily incapacitated if a player chose to overuse it. A player didn't have to worry about running out of ammo in the middle of a fight. He could pump 8 shotgun rounds into that charging Krogan without having to worry that he wouldn't have any ammo for that shotgun left the next time a Krogan came running around the corner.



With sniper rifles, for most, if you fired more than one round back to back, you'd be locked out for a few extra seconds. No matter how you fired it... whether you waited a second or two between shots to keep the weapon on the edge of overheating, or you shot all at once, overheated, and then had to wait... over an average minute you'd still be doing the same amount of damage either way, and you never had to worry about losing that rifle when you really needed it.



Was it possible to throw some augments in there that let you just fire over and over? Sure. I had one set of augments, I think the freeze one and maybe frictionless that let me mash the trigger and never overheat... but my damage was smaller and my rate of fire was 40% slower. I also had another favorite system where I'd throw on sledgehammer rounds and the gun would overheat with every shot but would send a crowd of enemies flying everywhere. Massive explosive damage that would let me debuff and crowd control in preparation for a rush.



The only thing the old system did really poorly was to not punish players for misuse of the weapons (ie mashing the trigger and spraying wildly) - the only punishment was a few seconds of overheat. And of course there were situations where you HAD to get into a high intensity firefight, but your gun would overheat and you had no remedy for it. On harder difficulty levels that could lead you high and dry with a Juggernaut baring down on you.



The new system trades the balance and long term utility of the old system for the forced control and constant availability of automatic weapons we see now. Neither system works well for every situation, unfortunately, but there's no denying that a hybrid system would. Personally, I really can't advocate either the ME1 or ME2 pure system as the better answer to the gameplay challenge, but I think the hybrid system takes what's best about both of these systems and drops the limitations to produce a system that I think does what the devs seem to want it to do.

[kmcd5722]

If the MAKO will not be back, and we are forced to scan planets: how bout selling credits for other minerals or trading minerals for minerals (e.g. if I have 20000 excess platinum I can trade it for 500 eezo).

[yuncas]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

.

Yeah, ME2 is the better technical achievement, and certainly everything that made ME1 unique in the RPG world is intact and improved this time around. But the substance of the game - all that stff you do between all the amazing ME moments... you know, the actual game... not nearly as good. You really have to remark at just how much LESS game there is here. And while the game is still fresh and most players haven't even gotten to a second playthrough yet, you don't tend to notice those things... be over time, I think more people will realize just how ME2 doesn't really improve anything in ME outside the hallmark stuff.

Well put again. By my second playthrough I found everything there was to find and do. I am on my third playthrough only to get the achievement for insanity on the 360 and see what the engineer is like. After that I think I'll put it down until more DLC comes out. 

[crossfire0719]

Fantastic ideas Scarecrow.

These ideas are a breath of fresh air. not like Bioware or ME2 cant handle themselves.

Anyways, i had a question about the armor, (there was a lot to read so i might not have caught it), did you mention anything about having individual pieces of armor. i was thinking gloves or shoulder pads. something to chew on.

Also, your revamped scanning system almost seems like its implementing an economy. sell of a certain type of mineral and its cost goes up. clever...

[crossfire0719]

oh! what your thoughts on a max level? i liked 60, gives you a sense of accomplishment. suppose it depends on the skill tree, huh? 


 

[EternalWolfe]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...
-snip-

2. Keep the thermal clips but bring back weapon mods.If people want to use things like frictionless materials and simply spam bullets ,fine, but at the cost of reduced damage. Make ammo powers available for everyone where logical. For example: Garrus isn't biotic so he can't therefore generate warp ammo. Shredder, incendiary, armour piercing, and disruptor are for everyone. Also keep ammo choices in the power wheel.

-snip-

You don't ask for much, do you?

On the Ammo Powers, I'd rather get weapon mods and change out the 'magazine' block for ammo types.  I think the Ammo Powers need to be dropped as skills and replaced with Weapon Powers again, like Carnage.  Purely my own opinion though.

Not going to go through the rest answering my own opinion, agree with a lot of it, providing it won't harm the story/gameplay by taking away too many resources.

Edited for space.

Modifié par EternalWolfe, 10 mars 2010 - 04:18 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

Ok, a few posts to reply to so I'll try to be organized.



Crossfire... I imagine the armor system for Shepard would be much like it is now, with various pieces you can mix and match. The only thing I would do here is increase the number available, make the helmet go away in non-combat or hazardous situations, and make the armor augmentation features (buffs) stronger so that they're more meaningful. If you're talking about for shipmates, I think customizable armor is unnecessary, though several optional outfits with unique attributes should be available.



As far as introducing an "economy" of sorts with planet scanning or resource management, while the "flood the market with one mineral and its value goes down" type of economy system is optional, having a means to sell, trade, and buy resources, if necessary, is something I'd like to implement. As far as max level, that depends largely on the number, type, and hierarchy of skills available to the player. You want to have enough skill levels so that the player can max out some but not all skills available to hit, so the max skill level should be adjusted to make sure this happens, and those levels should reward points at a steady pace so that the player is always working toward the next level as he moves through the game. Arbitrarily throwing numbers out there like "I think it should be 60" makes no sense out of context... ya know?



Eternal... I agree ammo powers should be dropped as skills. But they should still be selected in combat in much the same way. Instead of putting the ammo "powers" in the skill tree system, however, they should be put in the research/upgrade system, since they're tech and not skills. This gets rid of the "why am I wasting skill points on what ammo I can use?" problem, while also keeping the "I can select the exact type of ammo I need for any situation any time I want even though it makes no sense in the lore" part.

[Soruyao]

I agree that having ammo powers be through customization to the weapon is fine and does make more sense.



Though, it is nice to have certain classes have certain ammo powers that other classes don't for purely gameplay reasons. If there were a way to handle it a little better lore wise (certain classes having access to those customization options for some reason?), I'd reccomend that.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well I think there are good lore reasons already for some of them... tech related ammo is restricted to tech related characters, just for example. However, what freeze and fire ammo/powers have to do with tech, I have no idea.



I liked being able to swap ammo on the fly to deal with the different kinds of threats, but having that in your skill tree made no sense. If these are indeed just some sort of mod to the gun that changes how they operate, then this is clearly an issue for the research upgrade system. Also, I see no reason why all characters shouldn't have access to all ammo types. Is there something in their dna which prevents them from picking up a gun with cryo ammo in it? Do they get an allergic reaction and go into shock whenever disruptor ammo is near?



Putting these ammo options in the upgrade system and giving access globally just makes more sense. Plus, putting them in the research system let's you add new functionality for high-level players. Maybe you can unlock a multi-phasic ammo system which cycles ammo types in automatic weapons on a per-shot basis? Like disruptor ammo with cryo and incendiary tracers.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

I'll start with Surface, since his post was smaller...

The reality is not that ME2 corrects problems that ME1 had... GameInformer put it best... BioWare didn't fix the things that were considered wrong in ME1, it got rid of them entirely.

Thought the Mako controls were clunky? No more Mako. Thought managing weapon heat left you out in the cold if you fired your assault rifle too much? Here's an ammo system instead. Used all your powers all at once and now you're stuck waiting for a recharge? Now you can have a fast global cooldown instead. Thought managing different types of weapons, armors, and augmentations was a hassle? Then you take what we give you. Didn't like having to wade through a lot of player customization options? Now your character is basically the same as everyone else's. Didn't like playing a shooter/rpg hybrid where the shooter elements weren't as good as the rpg elements? Fine, let's just get rid of all the RPG stuff and just go with shooter.

In removing those issues, I feel ME2 corrected them by replacing them with superior systems. Mako was not removed, it was just converted to the Hammerhead, which sadly wasn't ready for release, but we'll have it soon. Looks like they're taking out the exploration element of it and focusing on the actiony parts, which works fine for me since the only decent Mako portion of the first game was the Virmire run.

Managing heat in the first game was an oxymoron. That system was broken completely at high levels and quite frankly many weapons in ME2 are balanced around a low ammo count. Can you imagine the Widow with an unlimited clip that you just had to wait to have recharge? The thermal system, while lore breaking certainly, does put an emphasis on conservation of ammo and making shots count and also gives an extra dial to turn for weapon balance. Anything that makes you pay more attention in combat is a good.

The reasons for shared cooldowns is quite obvious I think. You literally cannot balance a game around someone who shines like a rock star for 5 seconds and then hides around a corner for 20 seconds waiting for their stuff to recharge. Being able to be more active with your abilities is just more fun as well and makes combat more active. I think that maybe some of the shorter cooldown abilities should be delinked from the longer ones, however the system works very well currently.

I "manage" my armor and weapons in ME2 about a million times more than I did in the first game. So not sure what you're referring to there.

I definitely do not agree with you on "simplified" character progression. There are many many more permutations of different kinds of characters you can play in ME2 than you could in ME1. In ME1, the difference between classes was pretty much which weapon you specialized with and that's it. Combat devolved into one of two catagories, either activate immunity and win the game, or spam every CC you had and win the game. There were more than enough points to throw into every other ability to a very decently high level. ME2 requires some amount of specialization and the divergent powers, which I agree do not do enough, add some level of differentiation between classes. However, how you build your character and what bonus weapon you take makes them play completely different from one another. For instance: The shotgun sentinal and the overload/warp sentinal. Both play completely different from one another, despite being the same class.

And finally, your point on removing "RPG elements" is a point of contention on these forums obviously. I will contend that it is a very silly point. Any stastical elements that were trimmed from the combat were due to them just not fitting in well with the action/rpg hybrid model Bioware is working towards. These were embellished in areas where the system could support it.

Yeah, ME2 is the better technical achievement, and certainly
everything that made ME1 unique in the RPG world is intact and improved
this time around. But the substance of the game - all that stff you do
between all the amazing ME moments... you know, the actual game... not
nearly as good. You really have to remark at just how much LESS game
there is here. And while the game is still fresh and most players
haven't even gotten to a second playthrough yet, you don't tend to
notice those things... be over time, I think more people will realize
just how ME2 doesn't really improve anything in ME outside the hallmark
stuff.

I couldn't disagree more. ME2 is in every way, to me, an improvement on the original. There is nothing the first game does better than the second besides those fantastic skyboxes on Uncharted worlds. I think the opposite of you, I think that over time you will see how much ME2 is really going to start a revolution in the RPG genre, with more games taking risks and straying from tired RPG tropes and cliches that have kept the genre from progression. However, as they say, only time will tell.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 mars 2010 - 02:27 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

As an addendum to my last statement: I love the RPG classics. There's nothing inherently wrong with the mechanics that have been used for the last 20 years. Dragon Age: Origins was easily my favorite game of last year and my favorite RPG since Baldur's Gate 2 because it just felt so traditional.



However, I love to see genre boundaries broken and risks being taken in how games are made. ME2 took a lot of risks, and for the most part I think they paid off. I'm completely fine with Dragon Age being the IP Bioware uses for more traditional and tactical based RPGs while Mass Effect is an IP that Bioware uses for experimentation with the genre.

[EternalWolfe]

Ok, first of all the simplier reply:

Bennyjammin79, i agree, weapon powers like Carnage(I think something better is needed then Marksman, Overkill, and Assassination though) should be in your skill tree, rather then ammo.  As for Warp, that makes an understandable power, since its boitics based.  More on that with the later part though.

I like the idea of upgradeing ammo with the research system.  I've posted in other threads(and possibly here, not sure) that one idea might have been to make upgrades weapon-(and in this case, mod-)based, then change the name of the weapons/mods when they upgrade.  This gives the feeling that your gaining new weapons and mods, which are direct upgrades to the old, and also increases the amount of loot within the game for you to find, while keeping the inventory of ME2.  Two birds with one stone, they say.
-----------------------------------------------------
Now then, for Scarecrow and Soruyao:

Alright, I'm still working this out in my head and trying to figure how it would feel, so bear with me.

First of all, as for ways to make certain ammo unavailable to others, Warp Ammo gives an excellent base.  Its a biotic based ability, so would be available to biotics only - sensible.  For techs, its a bit harder - Cryo, Incendiary, Diruptor ammos, they all have a base in the last game.

Incendiary rounds consist of a thermite paste which clings to, and burns through, nearly any known substance

Cooling lasers collapse ammunition into small Bose-Einstein condensate - a mass of super-cooled subatomic particles - capable of snap-freezing impacted objects

Instead of projectiles, upgraded weapons release energized protons capable of bypassing kinetic barrier shields. However, the actual damage inflicted on the target is typically less than that of a standard round.

All from the descriptions in the ammo upgrades.  Armor Piercing seems most like Tungsten(with extra health damage) and Shredder seems like . . . er, Shredder.  Perhaps the Tech ammo could be a special form of one of these requiring an omni-tool(and a skilled user) to modulate properly?  Or something like that - extra effects added onto the bullet by key manipulation of the system by a skilled user with an omni-tool.

Anyways, on to the proposal portion.  What you could do, to keep ammo on the wheel, is to have it switch ammo types by choosing the weapon again.

For instance, you want Disruptor Ammo, you pull up the wheel and click on the weapon you have equipped, and the icon will change color, signifying which ammo you have chosen.  This could be done several ways - either rotating or bringing up a smaller/second wheel, ect.  Or perhaps have the ammo as an option on the weapon wheel(as opposed to the power wheel), though that depends on the number of types and space available.

Now then a 'lore' point - you can switch them because you have built into your systems multiple magazines, which can be switched over with a press of a button.  If you want to give it to the players as a bonus as they level up, place the system as an upgrade, and allow them to equip more ammo types in a single weapon with the new upgrades - could have several upgrades, each one adding another 'slot' for ammo, then allowing switching in battle through the weapon wheel.

Any ideas/suggestions/notes on obvious flaws in the system I'm too blind to see?

[Scarecrow_ES]

Surface, I mean no offense to you personally, although I'm not sure it could be taken any other way, but the sort of "dumb" thinking you've put out there in that last round of posts is exactly why all these systems got changed in the first place. Much of the logic is convoluted beyond even just a cursory glance.



The Hammerhead will be limited in use to special missions within the DLC pack it comes with. In no way is this a replacement for the Mako. Instead, for resource/credit farming we get planet scanning, and planetary exploration was dropped entirely. In fact, any exploration at all was dropped in favor or purely linear mission structures.



I would argue that weapons in ME1 were far more balanced than they are in ME2 by virtue of the fact that you were limited in how much damage you could do in a given amount of time, but were never limited in use. You're right in saying you simply could not add ammo for the Widow in ME2, which is a fact I've been touting as a reason why the new system cannot be balanced. There is no system in play in the ME2 system to regulate the damage/time factor like there is in the ME1 system, and thus the only way to ensure a player can't use the rifle too often is to make sure he runs out of ammo quickly. There are no options to "dial" in balancing this system. You have only damage, rate of fire, and number of rounds. You increase the number of rounds in a sniper rifle, you have to remove damage or lower rate of fire... both make the weapon useless = broken.



I agree with you that the PURPOSE of the new global cooldown system was to ensure that players wouldn't have to wait 20 seconds to use their powers again, but the new system also removes the ability to combine power effects from multiple powers on the same target, or to attack multiple targets in quick succession. In solving one problem, BioWare creates another. This see-sawing effect can be seen in most of the new systems they've put in for ME2.



I can't see how you think there is greater class customization when classes have access to half of the abilities they had in ME1. On the face, this was all meant to boil the classes down to a specific "essense" to make them play differently, but then BioWare went an made sure that there was significant skill tree overlap by significantly limiting the available powers, thus ensuring the different classes were all basically playing from the same playbook. Within a class, there is virtually no possibility of making your character different than anyone else's. An Infiltrator is an Infiltrator is an Infiltrator.



I don't think there is any point of contention about ME2 severely lacking the RPG elements that the first one had, unless that point is whether or not an individual cares that they aren't there. You might not care. Personally, I do. Any arguement against ME2 being significanlt less an RPG than ME1 is... frankly... wasted.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Surface, I mean no offense to you personally, although I'm not sure it could be taken any other way, but the sort of "dumb" thinking you've put out there in that last round of posts is exactly why all these systems got changed in the first place. Much of the logic is convoluted beyond even just a cursory glance.

You're right, there is no way that could be taken any other way. And frankly I would find it insulting that someone who started such a thought provoking thread would come out and denounce any opposition to their ideas as "dumb" (whether referring to the ideas or the person) if this wasn't anywhere else but the internet. Such a stance undermines your very OP by discouraging discussion.

The Hammerhead will be limited in use to special missions within the DLC pack it comes with. In no way is this a replacement for the Mako. Instead, for resource/credit farming we get planet scanning, and planetary exploration was dropped entirely. In fact, any exploration at all was dropped in favor or purely linear mission structures.

Planet Scanning was not a replacement for the Mako. This kind of misrepresentation is beyond idiotic and I cannot believe how people got it into their heads that these were analogues for one another. There are exactly no gameplay similarities between the two and they do not function to the same ends as one another. Planet Scanning, if anything, is a replacement for the first game's Omni-Gel game, which consumed a fair portion of the last 3/4 of the game after you got your Specter weapon. I don't care for either, and I hope ME3 drops planet scanning. But resentment over the Mako being gone does not make Planet Scanning a justifiable target for the reason of its disclusion from ME2.

The fact is, the "exploring" parts of the game (I quote exploring because it wasn't actually exploring. Exploring implies there was something to explore, which ME1 had none of), were the worst parts of the game. They were replaced with N7 missions which, while equally shallow, at least are quick and usually pretty fun. The Hammerhead looks to be a great bit of fun as well. That said, I would not be opposed to more exploration in ME3 than there is in ME2, however it should not be like ME1.

I would argue that weapons in ME1 were far more balanced than they are in ME2 by virtue of the fact that you were limited in how much damage you could do in a given amount of time, but were never limited in use. You're right in saying you simply could not add ammo for the Widow in ME2, which is a fact I've been touting as a reason why the new system cannot be balanced. There is no system in play in the ME2 system to regulate the damage/time factor like there is in the ME1 system, and thus the only way to ensure a player can't use the rifle too often is to make sure he runs out of ammo quickly. There are no options to "dial" in balancing this system. You have only damage, rate of fire, and number of rounds. You increase the number of rounds in a sniper rifle, you have to remove damage or lower rate of fire... both make the weapon useless = broken.

Weapons more balanced in ME1? Really? Is that what you'd call me attaching a few heat reducers to my sniper rifle and then auto firing with my level 30 infiltrator for 3 minutes straight on my sniper rifle? The old system did not work. It was boring, required very little attentiveness from the player, and rewarded just spraying bullets towards opponents rather than being precise and aiming. Why try to fix something that is inherently broken when you can use a new system that works better in every way?

I agree with you that the PURPOSE of the new global cooldown system was to ensure that players wouldn't have to wait 20 seconds to use their powers again, but the new system also removes the ability to combine power effects from multiple powers on the same target, or to attack multiple targets in quick succession. In solving one problem, BioWare creates another. This see-sawing effect can be seen in most of the new systems they've put in for ME2.

Can't combine powers? Warp does bonus damage to anyone afflicted by an existing biotic power and if you throw someone after pulling them they rocket into the air for the chance at an instant kill. Cryo Blast and Ammo makes your other abilities do more damage to the target. There are far more power combinations now than there were in the first game, and now you have to choose team mates that augment those powers to better combo them. Now these comboes require set up instead of just spamming them near simultaneously.

I can't see how you think there is greater class customization when classes have access to half of the abilities they had in ME1. On the face, this was all meant to boil the classes down to a specific "essense" to make them play differently, but then BioWare went an made sure that there was significant skill tree overlap by significantly limiting the available powers, thus ensuring the different classes were all basically playing from the same playbook. Within a class, there is virtually no possibility of making your character different than anyone else's. An Infiltrator is an Infiltrator is an Infiltrator.

Because half the abilities in ME1 were passive. Go to the class and builds forum to see the various builds of classes you can do in ME2. And I assure you, that as having played both, I know of 3 different ways to play the Sentinal class in ME2 alone that function entirely differently from one another (Assault Sentinal, Power Sentinal, and Support Sentinal). Meanwhile, in ME1, as I said, there were literally 2 ways to play all 6 classes. Either activate Immunity if you had it and pretend to be Rambo, or spam CCs to make combat a joke. There were no other ways to play. Period. The sharing of abilities is immaterial as it's the combinations of abilities at your disposal that makes for true variability in combat. An Adept plays conceptually like a Power Sentinal, however because the Adept has Pull and Singularity while the Sentinal has Overload and Tactical Armor, the way they function in play is much different from one another.

It seems to me that you are ignoring much of the complexities of ME2's system in order to strengthen your stance to yourself and those who support your views. To anyone who sees ME2's subtleties you're going to appear to be oblivious to key points at best and intellectual dishonest at worst.

I don't think there is any point of contention about ME2 severely lacking the RPG elements that the first one had, unless that point is whether or not an individual cares that they aren't there. You might not care. Personally, I do. Any arguement against ME2 being significanlt less an RPG than ME1 is... frankly... wasted.

I don't think RPGs can be defined by stats, rules, and inventories. What makes an RPG is more than the component parts of it. Now, you can say that you would rather ME2 be more confined to traditional RPG values as the first one was. This is a valid point of view and certainly one that you could argue from. However, arguing that ME2 is not an RPG or less of an RPG becomes problematic as that definition is so ill-defined and liquid that it is impossible to hold onto. And it's a silly discussion, since ultimately RPGs do mean different things to different people. As someone who plays PnP roleplay frequently with friends, we all agree that rules be damned, what makes an RPG is the spirit of the game. That is my stance on the issue.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 11 mars 2010 - 07:47 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

I just want to follow up that I'm not trying to undermine your suggestions. A few of them are quite good and I agree with them at least in the spirit of trying to make ME3 an even more complex and interesting game. I just wanted to argue the grounds for many of your changes.

[Andaius20]

Deleted

Modifié par Andaius20, 11 mars 2010 - 08:47 .

[yuncas]

Nooo! Don't take another step towards that flame thread cliff fellas, it's a long way down.

[javierabegazo]

yuncas wrote...

Nooo! Don't take another step towards that flame thread cliff fellas, it's a long way down.

This, don't go there guys, this is one of the most intelligently debated threads in the forums, keep the flaming out of it. If you disagree so much with an idea, simply state that and make no aspersions on the author's mental faculties

[Master Smurf]

Following on the Ammo discussion - They should stay on the wheel sans the cooldown. You would choose the ammo you want to carry as part of your loadout pre mission.

Like the idea of research for the upgrade of ammo - three level would be fine I think.



What also would be nice is a full immersion option in the menu (similar to subtitles film grain etc) - airlocks, elevators, no mission end screen, no choose your party after you leave the Normandy.

For gamers that like insta everything - they can turn the option off.



Inclusion should be the keyword for ME3 not streamlined.

[Samahl na Revas]

1. Concerning Weapons and Equipment Inventory Refinement {INVNT}



Great idea, I also think that research and licenses should also extend to providing our teammates with more outfit options. For example I can buy a license from the Sirta foundation to outfit my team, this would provide each member with 1 extra unique outfit. Furthermore, but not necessary each different license can have an expected set of bonus like 10% health increase etc, so that the player knows off the bat what they are buying. Otherwise I agree with this section of you post.



3. Concerning Improvements to Power/Skill Customization and Usage {PWRSKLL}

Another great idea, my only concern is the control scheme Right Stick (Click): Camera (Cover*), the right stick click for cover I think is bad . I don't know thinking about it I don't think it would work. I think having the a button left as is is better and that tapping the a button to initiate an attack context sensitive would be better. The right stick click I think could better be used for ducking if Bioware were to reintroduce that system [edit] or reloading.





2. Concerning Weapons Gameplay Refinements {WEAPS}



--only issue--

I think that the ammo system in ME 2 works best for the Geth pulse riffle. With that said I read your hybrid proposal and thought of the an initial supplementary system that went something like this: by holding down reload button the player could dispense heat from a weapon at anytime prior to it over heating. However, looking at the button scheme again using LB as weapon change and reload provided a conflict.



....cryo-cooling....



Other than that great ideas.

[Scarecrow_ES]

The offense here is exactly what I was trying to avoid. By "dumb" thinking, the intent was not to say that there was no intelligence or rationale behind the arguements presented, but that the arguements were based entirely around rationale support of an irrationale arguement - thus rather than looking at the data present and establishing a conclusion based around the given evidence, a conclusion was first built (based largely around opinion and preference) and a selection of the facts was compiled together in such a way as to seem to support said conclusion. "Dumb" thinking.



Most people called out on that sort of thing WILL get offended, as most will not be able to separate the idea that it was not himself that was wrong, simply the logic process that got him there. Again, the goal is not to offend, but to point out the fallacy in the logic. Hence the initial disclaimer.



Planet scanning does much of what tooling around in the Mako did in ME1. It served as a way to discover mission locations and locate resources around a given stretch of planet surface. This is thus the only means of planetory exploration present in the game. Instead of landing on a planet and driving to a mission location, you scan the planet and land on a mission location. Instead of driving to mineral deposits or misc item fetching locations and playing a mini-game to retreive them, you play a mini-game to find the locations and launch a probe to retreive them. In both cases, there are vast stretches of nothingness that you must wade through to find anything of any real value, and getting between important points on the planet surface is boring and tedious. Planet scanning is very much a replacement for the Mako.



If the goal of the new system was to increase attentiveness and prevent spraying, as you argue, then why is it that the only weapons in the game that have enough ammo to get through every fight you can get into on any difficulty level are the automatic weapons (SMG and AR)? The entire ME2 combat system is geared toward these two weapons - so much so that weapons like the sniper rifle have limited use at best. To say that it was possible to throw on a set of weapon augmentations that allowed you to circumvent some of the drawback to the heat management system is not an indictment of said heat system. It's an indictment against the augmentation system. At the same time, with the augmentation system, it was entirely possible to add augments that caused a weapon to overheat 70% faster, but also do 70% more damage. It was also possible to increase damage slightly while maintaining the basic heat management capabilities of the weapon. At no point, then, is balance really lost. You have to give up one thing you want to get another. Yes, you can make it so the weapon might not overheat (you could also do this for pistols with the Marksman ability at higher levels), but at the cost of not being able to increase the damage capability of that weapon. At no point does this detract from the balance inherit in the ME1 system. Again, if you could blame any system here for a perceived lack of balance, you could try to blame the augment system.



As you've said, combining powers requires squadmates. The arguement was though that YOU could not combine powers.



We're at odds with the ME1 and ME2 skill set complexity, and I'm not sure of an arguement to pursuade you. You're argueing that you see greater class differentiation in ME2 because players are forced to be more creative and more selective when focusing on high-level powers (though from a practical perspective actual difference is negligable), while simultaneously arguing that ME1's system gave far greater options (passive or otherwsie) but yielded negligibly different results because of a lack of player creativity.



I'd argue the opposite, that a creative player had far more options in ME1 to build a class to suit their style of play, and that ME2's system doesn't even apply the illusion of choice except in bonus power, and thus any real difference in character differentiation will result from apllication instead, and not from skill set. The difference in viewpoint here leads to two different conclusions... and I think a key point comes from our different definition of RPG.



You seem to define an RPG in spirit ("I'd know it when I saw it"), and I'd be remiss if I didn't pull ME2's RPG Card based solely on your definition alone. Different costumes and an upgrade system do not an RPG make - nor does the ability to shape the story through the experience of the lead character. As I used in an earlier arguement, ME2 holds more in common with Resident Evil 4 than it does with ME1 in this regard, from a gameplay perspective. Story-based 3rd person shooters with linear level structure, item pick-ups, and light upgrade elements.



Noone would call RE4 an RPG however, and given how ridiculously similar the gameplay layout is for ME2, you really have to lean away from RPG here too. I mean, ME1 was certainly RPG-light when it came out, especially compared to other BioWare games and even other console RPGs like Fallout 3 (exactly how shooter/RPG should have been done) or Oblivion. You could have made the arguement for ME1 that much of the RPG of the game had been toned down to emphasize the more shooter-centric combat, which of course so many have. Given that ME1 was barely an RPG by even modest standards, where does that leave ME2?



As a side note, you can't argue RPG by stating story and character interaction either, as you get just as much of that in a Zelda game as you do here (though clearly the presentation of such is far more detailed in ME, no arguement there).



Again, just to emphasize the earlier apology, I wasn't trying to call you stupid, just that you had been using "dumb" thinking in your arguements. The distinction would have been too subtle to most people and thus why I warned about the possibility of offense. Sorry.

[SurfaceBeneath]

First off, excuse my soapbox here. This is a lot of content, but I thought if I was going to go into full discussion mode, I might as well just go full hog into it.

Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Planet scanning does much of what tooling around in the Mako did in ME1. It served as a way to discover mission locations and locate resources around a given stretch of planet surface. This is thus the only means of planetory exploration present in the game. Instead of landing on a planet and driving to a mission location, you scan the planet and land on a mission location. Instead of driving to mineral deposits or misc item fetching locations and playing a mini-game to retreive them, you play a mini-game to find the locations and launch a probe to retreive them. In both cases, there are vast stretches of nothingness that you must wade through to find anything of any real value, and getting between important points on the planet surface is boring and tedious. Planet scanning is very much a replacement for the Mako.

Still disagreed. Mineral mining in the Mako in the first game was a mostly pointless endevour that gave you credits you didn't need. Planet Scanning in Me2 serves as a secondary progression resource akin to credits or experience. The reason that I say that planet scanning is an analogue for inventory management in the first game is that they are similar both contextually and thematically. In one you spend time scanning planets mining out tertiary resources (the various metals and eezo), in the other you scan your inventory for useless items to "mine out" a tertiary resource (omni-gel) And while they both serve as ways to locate mission locations, the Mako usually represented a significant part of those missions whereas Planet Scanning you pretty much just click on a planet and scan for 3 seconds to find the location. Yes, they both were how you interacted with planets and they both had you looking for resources, however these are only similar superficially and both are used to accomplish vastly different ends, one to further your secondary passive progression, one as a vehicle shooter/exploration segment of a mission.

If nothing else, hopefully when the Hammerhead comes out people will stop comparing the Mako and Planet Scanning.

If the goal of the new system was to increase attentiveness and prevent spraying, as you argue, then why is it that the only weapons in the game that have enough ammo to get through every fight you can get into on any difficulty level are the automatic weapons (SMG and AR)? The entire ME2 combat system is geared toward these two weapons - so much so that weapons like the sniper rifle have limited use at best. To say that it was possible to throw on a set of weapon augmentations that allowed you to circumvent some of the drawback to the heat management system is not an indictment of said heat system. It's an indictment against the augmentation system. At the same time, with the augmentation system, it was entirely possible to add augments that caused a weapon to overheat 70% faster, but also do 70% more damage. It was also possible to increase damage slightly while maintaining the basic heat management capabilities of the weapon. At no point, then, is balance really lost. You have to give up one thing you want to get another. Yes, you can make it so the weapon might not overheat (you could also do this for pistols with the Marksman ability at higher levels), but at the cost of not being able to increase the damage capability of that weapon. At no point does this detract from the balance inherit in the ME1 system. Again, if you could blame any system here for a perceived lack of balance, you could try to blame the augment system.

Your first statement indicates to me that you do not have a ton of experience playing the game. They only two weapons greatly limited by their ammo limit are the Sniper Rifle and the Hand Cannon (the other heavy pistol has tons of ammo). The shotguns all have sufficient ammo when used as they are meant to be used since it should only take a couple shots to finish an opponent and since you are right next to them their ammo drops right in your face. And again, these weapons are balanced around that low ammo count since they are inherently very powerful. The problem with the ME1 system is not that it is just inbalanced, it actually started out quite balanced, it's that as the game progressed and you gained increased influence over heat control, it would break. The higher level you got, the less attention you had to pay. That's not good game design, higher levels should bring more options and require more of the player to utilize their skills fully. ME1 had a reverse incline of difficulty, and part of that was due to its heat management system.

Regardless, the ini files in Mass Effect 2 actually show that Bioware did at first attempt a hybridized overheat/thermal clip system. The fact that they did not keep it indicates to me that it did not work for one reason or another. Being that they are the game developers here, I trust that their decision to do so was based in good reasons.

As you've said, combining powers requires squadmates. The arguement was though that YOU could not combine powers.

No it does not. The durations of Singularity and Pull are greater than that of their cooldowns. You are merely rewarded for bringing squad mates who help initiate those combos.

We're at odds with the ME1 and ME2 skill set complexity, and I'm not sure of an arguement to pursuade you. You're argueing that you see greater class differentiation in ME2 because players are forced to be more creative and more selective when focusing on high-level powers (though from a practical perspective actual difference is negligable), while simultaneously arguing that ME1's system gave far greater options (passive or otherwsie) but yielded negligibly different results because of a lack of player creativity.

I'd argue the opposite, that a creative player had far more options in ME1 to build a class to suit their style of play, and that ME2's system doesn't even apply the illusion of choice except in bonus power, and thus any real difference in character differentiation will result from apllication instead, and not from skill set. The difference in viewpoint here leads to two different conclusions... and I think a key point comes from our different definition of RPG.

The problem is that ME2 rewards a player's creativity (on higher difficulties anyway) while ME1 did not. It gave you the illusion of a ton of choices, yet it was simply that, an illusion. All gunplay in ME1 devolved into two scenarios, hilarious Rambo hyjinks caused by the ridiculously high uptime one could obtain through Immunity or simply a game of CC spam in which the absurd number of Crowd Control you were allowed in ME1 led to extremely passive battles. Playing on higher difficulties in ME1 only exacerbated that situation as these two scenarios became the only feasible way to play.

You seem to define an RPG in spirit ("I'd know it when I saw it"), and I'd be remiss if I didn't pull ME2's RPG Card based solely on your definition alone. Different costumes and an upgrade system do not an RPG make - nor does the ability to shape the story through the experience of the lead character. As I used in an earlier arguement, ME2 holds more in common with Resident Evil 4 than it does with ME1 in this regard, from a gameplay perspective. Story-based 3rd person shooters with linear level structure, item pick-ups, and light upgrade elements.

Noone would call RE4 an RPG however, and given how ridiculously similar the gameplay layout is for ME2, you really have to lean away from RPG here too. I mean, ME1 was certainly RPG-light when it came out, especially compared to other BioWare games and even other console RPGs like Fallout 3 (exactly how shooter/RPG should have been done) or Oblivion. You could have made the arguement for ME1 that much of the RPG of the game had been toned down to emphasize the more shooter-centric combat, which of course so many have. Given that ME1 was barely an RPG by even modest standards, where does that leave ME2?

Again, this is a problematic discussion because the very definition of an RPG is so murcurial to escape definition in any genre discussion. Roleplaying has always been an act of inserting yourself in the role of the character. A Roleplaying game is that in which the game gives you tools to make that character a representation of yourself or a character of your design through the game, and which presents you opportunities to actualize this on the story. If we look at RPG video games as an extention of their PnP counterparts, then we see that the "Mechanics" of the RPG that most people refer to in this argument stem from a tradition of importing certain PnP rulesets into the games, not because those rulesets were inherently a part of roleplaying games. Compared to the sheer variety of PnP roleplaying games out there, the absolute chokehold people put on what "elements" make an RPG game an RPG are, to be frank, ludicrous. There are many, many, many PnP roleplaying games out there that do not include inventory, loot, or leveling. Why is it that those -specific- tropes that were arbitrarily selected to be a part of RPG video games back in the late 80s and 90s now required for a game to be an RPG when it was all just supposed to be a virtual medium for the PnP experience which contains permutations far beyond those systems that we are most familiar with? There is no reason besides familiarity. The Mechanics were only there to provide an abstraction for things that players at a PnP player could not physically do at the table.

Take these two scenarios: In one game I have to select an enemy on my screen, press the fire gun ability, and then my character fires their gun and a dice is rolled behind the screen that determines whether or not it hits. In the second game, I manipulate my character's aim in order to fire at an enemy and press the fire button to attack them. Both are abstractions that the video game provides us to simulate something that our character is doing. Which one is inherently more "Roleplay-ey" than the other? Neither, because both merely exist to provide a simulation of gunplay through abstract rules.

Tradition is obviously an important factor, and obviously language itself might be the limiting factor in this discussion. Just as Kleenex has become synonymous with facial tissue, the term RPG has come to symbolize more than one could argue it inherently is. And as someone who adores the RPGs of 1998-2000 (Planescape:Torment and Baldur's Gate 2 are my top two favorite games of all time), I certainly cannot invalidate the appreciation players have for those specific mechanics and who are upset that they are not present, or at least not strongly so, in Mass Effect 2. Especially given that Bioware has long been a bastion of those kinds of games in a video game landscape when such games are exceedingly rare. However, I think with Dragon Age: Origins, Bioware has established a franchise which honors those traditional values. That's awesome and they should continue in that direction with Dragon Age. With Mass Effect, they should be given the leeway to experiment with the genre and to create games which seek to honor less the tradition of RPGs and instead their spirit while allowing Bioware to develop different kinds of games. Is dictating on them what kind of game they are "allowed" to make fair or sensible? Hell no.

Again, just to emphasize the earlier apology, I wasn't trying to call you stupid, just that you had been using "dumb" thinking in your arguements. The distinction would have been too subtle to most people and thus why I warned about the possibility of offense. Sorry.

I wasn't offended by any supposed insinuations of being called dumb. I was just pointing out that by dismissing opposing viewpoints out of hand as "dumb" instead of giving them credance you were only doing a disservice to your own original post which it looks like you put a lot of effort into. Continue to put a lot of effort into this thread and I hope Bioware gives your ideas an honest look and try them out in their early builds of ME3.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 12 mars 2010 - 02:10 .

[Soruyao]

-edit-  Darnit!  I was 15 minutes late!  I was hoping to beat surfacebeneath to responding.   X3


I'm gonna steer clear of the possible ad hominem / not ad hominem argument as far as possible, but I will say that I don't think his thinking was "dumb" at all.  He's just approaching the issue from a slightly different perspective.

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

Planet scanning does much of what tooling around in the Mako did in ME1. It served as a way to discover mission locations and locate resources around a given stretch of planet surface. This is thus the only means of planetory exploration present in the game. Instead of landing on a planet and driving to a mission location, you scan the planet and land on a mission location. Instead of driving to mineral deposits or misc item fetching locations and playing a mini-game to retreive them, you play a mini-game to find the locations and launch a probe to retreive them. In both cases, there are vast stretches of nothingness that you must wade through to find anything of any real value, and getting between important points on the planet surface is boring and tedious. Planet scanning is very much a replacement for the Mako.

Here is somewhere I will agree with you.  If you define planet exploration as wading through vast amounts of nothingness to find things of value, then yes, planet scanning is a replacement for the mako.    I don't really think wading through vast amounts of nothingness is good game design, though.   Many people hated mako exploration in the first game for the same reasons that many people hate planet scanning in this game.  

Now, if you think of the mako not in terms of the boring stuff we spend most of our time doing with it, and just in terms of the vehicle and the situations in which it worked well, then the hammerhead begins to make more sense as a replacement for it.   The mako sections on virmire and ilos worked very well and stayed entertaining for several playthroughs.  These are the moments that I truly miss (besides the occasional pretty skybox amidst the monotony of exploration.)   Will the hammerhead work well at replacing these?  We'll see.

What you see the hammerhead replacing has to do with aspect you liked the most about the original vehicle.  One aspect of it's gameplay is replaced, and one is in the process of being replaced.

If the goal of the new system was to increase attentiveness and prevent spraying, as you argue, then why is it that the only weapons in the game that have enough ammo to get through every fight you can get into on any difficulty level are the automatic weapons (SMG and AR)? The entire ME2 combat system is geared toward these two weapons - so much so that weapons like the sniper rifle have limited use at best. To say that it was possible to throw on a set of weapon augmentations that allowed you to circumvent some of the drawback to the heat management system is not an indictment of said heat system. It's an indictment against the augmentation system. At the same time, with the augmentation system, it was entirely possible to add augments that caused a weapon to overheat 70% faster, but also do 70% more damage. It was also possible to increase damage slightly while maintaining the basic heat management capabilities of the weapon. At no point, then, is balance really lost. You have to give up one thing you want to get another. Yes, you can make it so the weapon might not overheat (you could also do this for pistols with the Marksman ability at higher levels), but at the cost of not being able to increase the damage capability of that weapon. At no point does this detract from the balance inherit in the ME1 system. Again, if you could blame any system here for a perceived lack of balance, you could try to blame the augment system.

The fact that SMGs and ARs get so much ammo does go against the system, and it breaks it as much as frictionless materials broke the first game.   However, removing frictionless materials from the augment system would not have been enough to make players not spray.   You would also have to remove snowblind rounds (because they slowed your firing down enough to make it almost impossible to overheat)  and any other mods that slow down your heat generation.

You would also have to remove or heavily change marksman and overkill, or remove the talents and augments that allow you to perma them.

But of course we're talking about ME2, so if we were to put in the overheat system on the guns that are balanced around low ammo capacity, we'd have to cut down on their damage.   (Either everyone will use sniper rifles and shotguns, or nobody will.)   If you reduce the dps of the sniper rifle to that of the assault rifle, then it's still a superior weapon because you can stay out of danger and headshot.   You'd end up with a sniper rifle that has lower dps than an assault rifle unless you nail every single headshot and never miss.

As of now, the sniper rifle is an incredibly powerful weapon that you can use as your primary weapon for the entire game if you are careful and you have decent aim.   Every weapon should be like this.    I still think the easisest solution (programming wise, at least) is to just reduce the amount of ammo a thermal clip gives assault rifle and SMG.  Players who like the AR would be able to use it as their primary weapon if they're careful and skilled, but they might be forced to use a sniper/pistol/shotgun once in awhile if they make a mistake.

This makes all of the guns we have matter.  It also makes guns like the geth pulse rifle look better, because they get a lot more ammo per clip than the other guns, because the gun is slightly weaker.  (This is kind of similar to the way vanguards choose the scimitar shotgun a lot simply because it is harder to run out of ammo with than the other guns.)

Basically, I think that taking the ME1 system fixing all of the things that were broken about it, pasting it into ME2, doing all the tweaking and balancing that would be necessary to make it work, and then adding content to create ME3 would be much more time and effort intensive than simply tweaking the system we have by changing some numbers around and adding a couple abilities.   This leaves them more time to create interesting content and story, which I think we can all agree is very important.

If time and effort aren't an issue, why not just go all out and use my earlier suggestion and have 3 completely different gun mechanics in the same game?  I can wait :3

As you've said, combining powers requires squadmates. The arguement was though that YOU could not combine powers.

I like to think of my squad as an extension of myself as a player.  If I use lift on someone and then have thane use warp, I feel like that power combination was something entirely done by me.  I don't see any real problem with taking a little bit of functionality from shepard and then placing it on his or her squad.  In fact, I think that the more this happens the better.   Your squad should matter, especially in a game like ME2 where the story is more about them than it is about either you or the collectors.

We're at odds with the ME1 and ME2 skill set complexity, and I'm not sure of an arguement to pursuade you. You're argueing that you see greater class differentiation in ME2 because players are forced to be more creative and more selective when focusing on high-level powers (though from a practical perspective actual difference is negligable), while simultaneously arguing that ME1's system gave far greater options (passive or otherwsie) but yielded negligibly different results because of a lack of player creativity.

I'd argue the opposite, that a creative player had far more options in ME1 to build a class to suit their style of play, and that ME2's system doesn't even apply the illusion of choice except in bonus power, and thus any real difference in character differentiation will result from apllication instead, and not from skill set. The difference in viewpoint here leads to two different conclusions... and I think a key point comes from our different definition of RPG.

I have an idea for how you could argue this:  Give us a class in ME1 that had more than one functionally different endgame build. One that doesn't fall into the catagory of "spam all your cc at the start of the fight" or "pop immunity and shoot things till they die" perhaps?

Then surface can go a little more in depth about the different sentinel builds.  I'd do it but sentinel isn't one of the classes I've played extensively.   I can tell you that you can specialise an adept in a warp spam oriented build with reave as the bonus power for more direct damage, and you can create a lift+throw+shockwave 1-2 punch build that doesn't include warp at all.  They are two very different playstyles, and if use a build optimised for one, the other would be more difficult or even impossible.   I can't think of any situations in ME1 where this would happen.   (Besides the infiltrator I made before I understood I'd get skillcapped, where I maxed out both charm and intimidate for some weird reason and as a result wasn't able to pick up one of my tech powers.   )

You seem to define an RPG in spirit ("I'd know it when I saw it"), and I'd be remiss if I didn't pull ME2's RPG Card based solely on your definition alone. Different costumes and an upgrade system do not an RPG make - nor does the ability to shape the story through the experience of the lead character. As I used in an earlier arguement, ME2 holds more in common with Resident Evil 4 than it does with ME1 in this regard, from a gameplay perspective. Story-based 3rd person shooters with linear level structure, item pick-ups, and light upgrade elements.

Noone would call RE4 an RPG however, and given how ridiculously similar the gameplay layout is for ME2, you really have to lean away from RPG here too. I mean, ME1 was certainly RPG-light when it came out, especially compared to other BioWare games and even other console RPGs like Fallout 3 (exactly how shooter/RPG should have been done) or Oblivion. You could have made the arguement for ME1 that much of the RPG of the game had been toned down to emphasize the more shooter-centric combat, which of course so many have. Given that ME1 was barely an RPG by even modest standards, where does that leave ME2?

Here is the flowchart I judge an RPG by.  First: Story.   

1. Does this game even try to have a story?   (Platformer games like sonic and mario die here, along with some but not all fps games.  I'm looking at you BORDERLANDS.)
2. Do I have any say in how the story plays out or ends?    (Gears of war and halo die here.  Even some JRPGs die here for me.  FF7 moves on because of things like side characters and the fact that you could go on an awkward date with barrett.  Bioshock and most silent hill games move on due to multiple endings.)
3. Is the change you make in the way the story plays out simply "good ending" and "bad ending"?   (Whoops, sorry bioshock, silent hill, and condemned!)

Second: Combat

4. Can I change the way a character plays in an interesting way through abilities and stats?

And that's it.  Most games that the industry considers rpgs make it through, though some don't.  (Borderlands)     All entries in the mass effect and fallout series make it through.  Most MMOs and every resident evil game ever fail on step 2.  Most action games with story fail on step 3.

To be honest, I can't think of any games that make it to step 4 and then fail there.  I think it's important for an RPG to have some way to modify the character, but I can't think of any games that get through step 3 and don't have some character stats and modifications.

As a side note, you can't argue RPG by stating story and character interaction either, as you get just as much of that in a Zelda game as you do here (though clearly the presentation of such is far more detailed in ME, no arguement there).

All of the zelda games fail on step 2.   There is nothing that epitomizes this more than the moment in ocarina of time where zelda asks you if you want to join her and fight ganondorf, and you get a yes/no dialogue choice.   If you choose no, she says "but this is important!  are you SURE you don't want to save the world?" and you get sent back to the same yes/no prompt.   When I hit this point, I feel like the game is asking for my input to trick me into thinking I'm playing an RPG, while really I'm playing a simplistic action game.

(I like the zelda series, but I hate those fake yes/no prompts.   Stop trying to lie to me and be proud of your genre!)

Modifié par Soruyao, 12 mars 2010 - 01:05 .