903 réponses à ce sujet

[Soruyao]

Quote is badly placed
Was aiming for edit
I've double posted.

Modifié par Soruyao, 12 mars 2010 - 01:11 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Soruyao wrote...

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

Bwahahaha!

Good read though!

[Scarecrow_ES]

Whew, I'm glad we're back onto real intellectual debate. I thought for a second there that we were about to devolve into one of these other topics. Again, my point was not that the arguements presented were not sound or even well presented... they were. Just that the initial logic was not sound, and that for some inexplicable reason you had taken this position that I could only call "hostile devil's advocate," which produced a great arguement on a flawed premise. Now we're back on track and I feel much better about it.



I like hearing the arguements to the effect that the ME1 heat management system for weapons became less of an issue once players became powerful enough to exert influence on how said system responded, because this is quite a clear issue that has two very valid points that can be argued. I think that, yes, once a player got up there in his player build (near the end of his first playthrough at least) he had enough high-level augments at his disposal that he could choose ones to negate many of the limitations on this heat system.



Now, you might argue that this is a bad thing as it removes some of the challenge inherit in such a system. I would argue that the negation of limitations comes as a part of being a powerful character. I think most players want to feel like a total badass by the end of the game - otherwise why waste time leveling up? I get what you're saying about the removal of some challenge associated with combat there, but is that really the fault of the combat system or the fault of the pacing of the game relative to the player's level?



Again, I don't see this as a problem with the heat management system, but of game structure. The simpler solution is to, as a player becomes more badass, give him more badass enemies to fight that require improved tactics, skill, or attentiveness to beat. As he has to wrstle less and less with the limitations of the combat system, make his wrestle more with the actual enemies. The two BioShock games do this very well. As you progress through the game, you become more powerful, and as you become more powerful you begin to see enemies that are smarter, faster, more powerful, and can't be defeated using the same ol' cheap tricks that worked in the first stage of the game.



Keep in mind that when I put my proposals up here, nowhere in it did I favor an augment system like the ME1 system. I can see as well as you the potential for abuse that you guys seem to rail against (though apparently I am in great minority for not having played the game in the same way you claimed everyone did in ME1, and thus have not experienced any of the same problems). Such a system could conceivably throw balance track, but you'd really have to argue the merit of choice versus predictability. The "few but different" weapons concept I put forth should give enough variety for a player to find a weapon that plays like the augmented version he likes without him being able to break the balance of the system, and I really think that'd be enough under the hybrid system.



Now, I can't see your two replies here on this next page, so I'm going to have to go back after I post this and continue my reply.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well, there's a lot there I haven't been able to address between SUrface's and Soruyao's posts. Honestly, I'm not sure I can or will address much of it because though we're on opposite sides of the debate, we agree at least on the facts. Only our interpretation is different, and arguing opinion never gets anyone anywhere... unless by anywhere you mean flame war.



Ummm, let's see. Surface and I see differently on which of the two skill tree systems offered real choice or just illusion of choice. I say ME1 was the real deal. Surface says ME2 was the read deal. I think you could argue and give examples til the cows come home and neither of us would be swayed, so this might really be an issue of interpretation. What I can say is that my focus in the last two games has been on the Infiltrator class. I've played other classes in both, but the majority of my playtime has been with the Infiltrator. From that perspective, I feel like in ME1, I could focus my Infiltrator on combat prowess (long and short range), debuffs, or a combination of the two.



I had Infiltrator builds that could wade into the middle of a fight and back out again. I had one where that was largely an Engineer with limited combat ability. And yet another where I could hang back and support with powerful sniper strikes and debuffs for a squad rush. No matter how I slice it, I can only come out with one Infiltrator build in ME2. I can't say this is not different for other classes. The Sentinel was never one I invested great time in, for instance, so I can't say it's not different for that class. All I can say for sure as a solid example is that for the Infiltrator, ME2 is far more limited in choice than ME1.



As for what defines an RPG and all that... Yeah, it is quite difficult to define, and getting harder all the time, it seems. All the genre-bending that's been going on in recent years certainly doesn't help alleviate the confusion. I do think that if you look at both ME1 and ME2 independantly, however, and you don't try to judge one in the context of the other, they're very different games mechanically. Given how much of the essense of Mass Effect is present in the second one, it's hard for us veteran players not to bring our preconceptions with us. If you hand ME2 to a person who had never played either game before, and then after he played through that you gave him ME1 to play, I can't see how he wouldn't be shocked at the difference. "I can't believe this used to be an RPG." I imagine that's what you'd hear.



It's funny because you mention a few games there, Soruyao, along with your criteria for RPG-dom, and I really have to wonder just how much the lines have blurred. Many FF games, for instance, have only one real ending. In fact, most JRPG series fall into this line. Given that, a game like BioShock or RE4 might only be slightly removed from traditional RPG status by even basic standards. Is the ME series, then, just sitting on THAT side of the border because of the greater amount of choice in the story? Is that the only thing that compels us to put the RPG label on ME2? Thought-provoking, I'd say.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Ummm, let's see. Surface and I see differently on which of the two skill tree systems offered real choice or just illusion of choice. I say ME1 was the real deal. Surface says ME2 was the read deal. I think you could argue and give examples til the cows come home and neither of us would be swayed, so this might really be an issue of interpretation. What I can say is that my focus in the last two games has been on the Infiltrator class. I've played other classes in both, but the majority of my playtime has been with the Infiltrator. From that perspective, I feel like in ME1, I could focus my Infiltrator on combat prowess (long and short range), debuffs, or a combination of the two.

I had Infiltrator builds that could wade into the middle of a fight and back out again. I had one where that was largely an Engineer with limited combat ability. And yet another where I could hang back and support with powerful sniper strikes and debuffs for a squad rush. No matter how I slice it, I can only come out with one Infiltrator build in ME2. I can't say this is not different for other classes. The Sentinel was never one I invested great time in, for instance, so I can't say it's not different for that class. All I can say for sure as a solid example is that for the Infiltrator, ME2 is far more limited in choice than ME1.

I think you should play something besides an Infiltrator. It might give you a very different perspective on things. Though I have seen some very interesting builds that use Tactical Stealth as a way to get to targets behind cover, attack with increased damage with a melee swing, and then mow them down with SMG fire while they are stunned. There's also a tactical build out there that uses Dominate and AI Hacking in order to control the field while they pepper it with sniper fire. I played an infiltrator in ME1 primarily, however they meet my first criteria as a class that can simply activate Immunity (which could have up to a 60ish% uptime) and become essentially immune to damage, and in such case, why would you care about any of their abilities when you could simply sit in the middle of the battlefield rapid firing Sniper Shots without any downside of doing so. Sure, you could play a different way, but you wouldn't be playing at the optimal ability of the class. The various Sentinal builds in ME2 (which I have the most experience with, but I have played all classes but the engineer and soldier extensively) function radically differently from one another, but they are actually very similarly powerful builds and all have the tools necessary to defeat the insanity difficulty relatively well on their own.

Anyways, what I am trying to illustrate here is that the reason that Mass Effect 2's combat system was overhauled was because when you looked very closely at Mass Effect 1's combat system, you saw the inherent cracks in it and how it might not simply be a situation in which you could just turn a few nobs to fix. Bioware went to a ton of effort to revamp the combat in ME2 because of this.

[cyless12]

Barker673 wrote...

Good luck getting ANYONE from BioWare onto the social site, I havn't seen anyone but Christine Norman here to talk about scanning improvements from like a week ago - where are they?

if NO ONE from bioware reads these forums why make them offical?

[Murmillos]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Sure, you could play a different way, but you wouldn't be playing at the optimal ability of the class.

This just strikes me.  You seem to forget, that a lot of people could and DO play a different way other then the "optimal" way. Optimal and fun don't mean the same thing to many people.  Why do you consider playing optimal the only way to play a game and if you are not doing it what you consider optimal, then they are not playing the game correctly?

If the person is complaining about the class, then I can get behind the "optimal" complaint, but if somebody is having fun, and doing it successfully with no issues playing the role as a sniper whom isn't able to withstand a firefight, then why do we look upon that as negative?  Its a role, its a successful role, so they are then playing the game correctly - maybe not "optimal", but still correctly. The poster above believes that ME2 offers less choice in roles - is he right or not? I'm not to judge - as that is limited by owns on expectations, imagination and problem solving skills - and over all general play style (and ablity to adapt to new play styles).

[SurfaceBeneath]

Murmillos wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Sure, you could play a different way, but you wouldn't be playing at the optimal ability of the class.

This just strikes me.  You seem to forget, that a lot of people could and DO play a different way other then the "optimal" way. Optimal and fun don't mean the same thing to many people.  Why do you consider playing optimal the only way to play a game and if you are not doing it what you consider optimal, then they are not playing the game correctly?

Only because the optimal level of play is the only objective measure of balance. Everyone can play and enjoy the game a different way, I wasn't suggesting otherwise. You could probably play ME1 without allocating a single skill point on the lowest difficulty and succeed. There are a million ways to play both ME1 and ME2. My point is that you should have the most objective viewpoint of the game mechanics as implimented before suggesting changes that would effect balance. Also, the same people who tend to complain ME2 is not RPG enough are also those that are subject to enjoying tailoring their characters to their maximum effectiveness and who like thinking creatively about successful builds. ME1 provides 2 routes to this. ME2 provides at least 2 very effective builds for each class that play very differently from one another (although there is some overlap... there are two control builds, one for Infiltrator and one for Engineer for instance that do play similarly to each other).

[Scarecrow_ES]

Ya see though, Surface, I'm not one of those guys who ever really used Immunity. I never needed it on any of the higher difficulty levels because I played Infiltrator as an Infiltrator. I stayed back, debuffed enemies, and then hit them with precision strikes. Wherever possible I attacked first with the element of surprise from beyond ranges where most enemy fire could get me. If the enemy was getting too close, I often had a powerful biotic around to run crowd control. If ever I was in a position to even NEED something like Immunity to get through a fight, then I had done something VERY wrong.



And that optimum thing really gets under my skin. Enough to get my blood pressure up, even. I appreciate that there are min/maxers out there that pour over every skill tree and whatnot to find the absolute best combination of skill points in this tree and that to produce a character that does absolutely the most damage per second with this weapon and the greatest defense against damage in this situation and has passive debuffs against this type of damage in that situation and... whatever. I get that there are people who want to do that. People who will get together and argue about how to squeeze every last HP or buff/debuff out of a character as possible. People who will come to one inevitable consensus, that ONE configuration for a given class is the absolute best and you'd be stupid not to play it that way. I understand that those people exist.



What I don't understand is why they exist. What fun comes from denying yourself the choice to play as you want to play and only choosing a predertermined path in a game designed to let you choose your own? Especially considering any one of those paths will get you to where you're going. No, I will never choose the optimum build just because someone says it is. And enough ranting about that, eh?



I can agree that the ME2 skill tree system does away with a lot of the fluff and redundancy the old system had. You can see a lot of my other posts about that. But it got rid of much more than that. Once they were done chucking the fluff, BioWare went after the choice too. If you say there are all these builds that all play remarkably different, I'll take your word for it. Quite frankly, I don't see it. It's not like ME1 gave you a huge amount of choice either - not compared to a game like Oblivion or Fallout 3, or hell, just about any one of the dozen or so RPGs I've plowed through in this console generation and last. It's just in ME2, I see even less.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Scarecrow, do not get me wrong. I am not one to normally MinMax myself in most circumstances (In my PnP group, I'm actually rather known for making intentionally weak characters and usually put myself in a kind of comic relief role for my group). However, being a game designer is a different beast and you have to design the game around what works and what does not. Again, the "highest level of play" is also the most objective standard for balance.

You could play the Infiltrator as you wanted to play it in ME1, but again I contest this is because ME1 never really demanded much from the player, even on the highest difficulty which as I said forced the player to actually play dumber since you just threw all creativity out of the window and used what works, and what worked was Immunity. This made for extremely unfun combat, which is what most of your original post is about is sprucing up the combat. I am just using the fabled "optimized build" as a basis for which to judge an objective measure of what combat mechanics should be based around. A Combat system which allows a player to play successfully with a dozen different character "builds" while still maintaining its challenge is a far better one that only allows 2 and which can't even manage to be challenging on that.

Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Quite frankly, I don't see it. It's not like ME1 gave you a huge amount of choice either - not compared to a game like Oblivion or Fallout 3, or hell, just about any one of the dozen or so RPGs I've plowed through in this console generation and last. It's just in ME2, I see even less.

As I said, I'd reccomend playing around with another class besides Infiltrator and maybe go to the classes and Builds forum here to hang in on some discussions. There is a 50 page thread all about how to play the Vanguard on Insanity, as it is one of the more challenging (and fun) classes to play effectively and it's got some great stuff in it. 

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 12 mars 2010 - 07:28 .

[Soruyao]

It's funny because you mention a few games there, Soruyao, along with your criteria for RPG-dom, and I really have to wonder just how much the lines have blurred. Many FF games, for instance, have only one real ending. In fact, most JRPG series fall into this line. Given that, a game like BioShock or RE4 might only be slightly removed from traditional RPG status by even basic standards. Is the ME series, then, just sitting on THAT side of the border because of the greater amount of choice in the story? Is that the only thing that compels us to put the RPG label on ME2? Thought-provoking, I'd say.

Frankly, I consider most JRPGs rpgs only in the loosest sense. Never once in any final fantasy game did I really feel like I was playing the role of any of my characters outside of some strange abstract number crunching and combat decision making. I tend to feel like I'm watching a story unfold with some abstract accounting mini-games in the place of page-turning.

What is going on in clouds head? Does he regret killing random shinra soldier #255? Is he developing feelings for one of his team? Does he think barrett is an idiot, or does he secretly admire his straightforwardness? These are all the types of questions that I would have liked to have some input in.

What DID I have input in? Which sword does cloud want to use? Does he want lightning materia in it? Should he attack or use an item? Does he want to open that treasure chest?  (Of course he does!  ._.)

If I'm playing a role in that situation, it's the role of a formless combat advisor, piping tactical advice into his head, like cortana to master chief.

I just don't understand how something like that can be called a "role playing game" in anything but the loosest sense. It feels semantically dishonest, like calling a bag of long and thin chips "french fries", because they're both made out of potatoes and both a similar shape.

In mass effect or fallout games, I don't feel like I'm some disembodied voice giving advice, I feel like I am that person. I don't just tell them where to shoot, I tell them who to pity, who to kiss, and who to hate. It makes the things that happen in the combat system matter, since it's easier to be involved emotionally.

When my main shepards' love interest died in my first playthrough, I felt it more than I've felt anything in a game until this point. I was sad for almost a week after that. If the combat had been terrible, and I had been limited to just that one playthrough, buying ME2 would have been worth it for that experience, because I felt like I was there. That's true roleplaying, and moments like that should be what define an RPG.

An RPG should be a game that forces you to play that role. You should be sucked in to the point where you are commander shepard, and the fate of the galaxy lies on your shoulders. You should be that wasteland survivor, when they feel that crushing moment where they realize that you have been abandoned by the only people you have ever known, and that you may never talk to another human being again.

For me, what really defines an RPG is it's ability to temporarily convince you that it isn't a game. That G falls off, and then it's you and your life and you have to make the best of it.

Modifié par Soruyao, 12 mars 2010 - 09:49 .

[Soruyao]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

Ya see though, Surface, I'm not one of those guys who ever really used Immunity. I never needed it on any of the higher difficulty levels because I played Infiltrator as an Infiltrator. I stayed back, debuffed enemies, and then hit them with precision strikes. Wherever possible I attacked first with the element of surprise from beyond ranges where most enemy fire could get me. If the enemy was getting too close, I often had a powerful biotic around to run crowd control. If ever I was in a position to even NEED something like Immunity to get through a fight, then I had done something VERY wrong.

And that optimum thing really gets under my skin. Enough to get my blood pressure up, even. I appreciate that there are min/maxers out there that pour over every skill tree and whatnot to find the absolute best combination of skill points in this tree and that to produce a character that does absolutely the most damage per second with this weapon and the greatest defense against damage in this situation and has passive debuffs against this type of damage in that situation and... whatever. I get that there are people who want to do that. People who will get together and argue about how to squeeze every last HP or buff/debuff out of a character as possible. People who will come to one inevitable consensus, that ONE configuration for a given class is the absolute best and you'd be stupid not to play it that way. I understand that those people exist.

What I don't understand is why they exist. What fun comes from denying yourself the choice to play as you want to play and only choosing a predertermined path in a game designed to let you choose your own? Especially considering any one of those paths will get you to where you're going. No, I will never choose the optimum build just because someone says it is. And enough ranting about that, eh? 

I'm really happy that you were an infiltrator focused player too, because the only character I ever got to 60 was an infiltrator.   I played every difficulty mode from normal to insanity over three playthroughs.   On my first  playthrough I used nothing but the sniper, and I tried to stay at range and debuff and play infiltratory.  I didn't use my tech skills much since their descriptions were a little vague and I had some trouble getting feedback on what they were doing, so I mostly shot people in the face.   I picked different squadmembers for every mission based on what my shepard thought would be the best person for the job.   Everything I did worked fine and I didn't really struggle anywhere.

My second playthrough was more than a year later, after I had played through as several other classes and had a greater grasp of the game.   (I wanted a 60 for ME2) I already knew how all the story would play out, so I kinda just picked the same dialogue choices I picked before and skipped through to the combat.   I wanted the insanity achievement so I was on insanity for that runthrough.

I realized that I could play the way I did before and take twice as long and die more often along the way, or I could socket frictionless, set immunity and marksman up so that their durations were longer than their cooldowns, and just stomp all over everything.

I knew this was a less interesting form to play, and I experimented with a bunch of different tactics, including socketing explosive rounds on a sniper and just firing once every 6 seconds.   The first time I shot a krogan with that and it didn't come close to dying, I couldn't help but think "Shepard would never use this gun."   This is the crux of why I choose min/maxing in an RPG.   If the fate of the universe were on my shoulders, I wouldn't knowingly endanger the mission by choosing subpar equipment.

When I'm playing a role of a character who would likely strive for efficiency and safety, it takes me out of the story when I metagame some bad decisions into her combat just to make things more interesting for myself.

I don't know if other people min/max for the same reason, but that's the main reason I do it, when I do.

There's also the fact that insanity in ME1 was incredibly tedious and slow.  The longer it takes to kill enemies, the more value DPS picks up and the less value burst damage does.   Focusing on burst damage is more fun and interesting and dynamic than focusing on dps, but when you hit something really hard and it doesn't die and you end up taking way longer to kill something, you feel like you did something wrong.    Snipers stopped being fun for me because of this.   Once snipers stopped being fun, I switched to pistols, because then at least I could have the fun that comes from killing things more quickly.

I can agree that the ME2 skill tree system does away with a lot of the fluff and redundancy the old system had. You can see a lot of my other posts about that. But it got rid of much more than that. Once they were done chucking the fluff, BioWare went after the choice too. If you say there are all these builds that all play remarkably different, I'll take your word for it. Quite frankly, I don't see it. It's not like ME1 gave you a huge amount of choice either - not compared to a game like Oblivion or Fallout 3, or hell, just about any one of the dozen or so RPGs I've plowed through in this console generation and last. It's just in ME2, I see even less.

Well, here's a really simple example with infiltrators:  The prevailing min/max opinion about infiltrators is that the best way to play is cloak sniping with tungsten ammo.  Their build involves completely ignoring every ammo type except tungsten and maxing out cloak, the class skill, and tungsten.  They put the rest of the points into incinerate and max it out I think.

Personally, I don't think cloak gives me enough of a damage boost to make it worth using with every snipe.  I much preferred to weave sniping in with my incinerate.   It felt like more damage, and I felt less vulnerable because I wasn't stuck outside my GCD as often.   I only used cloak for escaping to better cover, and I only needed 2 points to give me enough time to easily do that.   Those two points freed up extra points that I put into cryo ammo, which I adore and feel completely naked without.   I only brought my bonus power up to rank 2, which freed up 2 more points for disruptor ammo, which I also love.

I ended up with a build that has something different to do in every situation, focusing on utility and situational abilities, rather than a build focused entirely on single target burst damage.   Both builds worked very well on insanity and played very differently.

In ME1, you could create a build that did pretty much everything perfectly well.  It only took a few points in sabotague to completely lock an enemy down, and you could completely ignore first aid.   (One squadmate with it was all you ever really needed.)  If you didn't put a ton of points into charm/intimidate and left out the points that didn't have any useful effect, you could max out everything else.  You end up with an infiltrator that can make themselves completely invincible, lock enemies down, bust through their shields, and shoot them in the face until they die.   The same build could do anything any other infiltrator build could do, and better.

And man, there isn't anything more anticlimactic than putting in point eleven into immunity.  "Hooray, now when I pop this skill I am 2% more invincible!"

Don't get me wrong, I loved my ME1 infiltrator to pieces! (Enough for 80 hours and 3 playthroughs!)  I just didn't feel very intellectually engaged by the skill system, and I feel much more so with the ME2 one.

Modifié par Soruyao, 12 mars 2010 - 09:40 .

[Commander Darmok]

Soruyao wrote...

Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Now, when BioWare made the sequel, they didn't make it for those of us that supported their first one. Not for all of us who bought it and loved it. No, they made it for those that hated the first one, or wished it was a different game. A series should grow from title to title. The developer should be free to expand and highlight features that work, fix features that don't, and infuse new features into the mix that take the series to the next level. I'm all for that. But sequels of a series are not really the place for instituting gameplay that radically alters the nature of a series. Noone seems to take too kindly to a Final Fantasy game that is all about button-mashing action and platforming. I doubt a Call of Duty card battle game would do very well either.

I don't know if I'm just some strange anomaly or something, but I liked ME1 enough to put 150 hours into it.  I played all the classes and got a level 60 and generally enjoyed it.   I bought the game new when it first came out.   I went from being someone who'd never heard of bioware to someone who really appreciates them.

I liked almost every change they made for ME2.  It feels like they made a great game into an even better game.

Now, I have no idea how common people like me are.  Maybe I'm just a statistical outlier who played the heck out of the first game and still loved the second.  Maybe I speak for a huge swath of satisfied gamers who feel no need to come onto the forums at all, they're just happily playing the game.  I just wanted to point out that there is at least one of me.

(I wonder what it is that's different in the way that I've approached this game and the way the more dissatisfied players have.  I can't quite figure it out.)

Maybe bioware wasn't tailoring the game for you specifically, or the subset of gamers that you belong to, but who were they tailoring the game for exactly?  Professional reviewers?  FPS players who have no interest in the franchise or in RPGS?  Me specifically?   (Sometimes when I look at the forums it kind of seems like the game was made specifically to please me and two certain other people.)  Can the same game please all of these catagories of people at the same time?  I feel the question is one we should really examine.

For me, the heart of the game hasn't changed much, it just became less grindy.  When I'm playing my infiltrator, I feel like I'm playing a more powerful version of the same character I played in the first game in situations that are correspondingly more dangerous than the ones she survived in the first game.   That's a largely subjective feeling, but it's where I'm at.

I was waiting to post my thoughts until I had read the thread in its entirety (I hate walls of text that are completely redundant,) and I shall add my two cents to the hat as soon as I have, but I have to weigh in on this.  I feel exactly the same way.  I loved ME1 - played the crap out of it.  I literally played it from the first day it launched until the day before ME2 (and even once since then.)  ME2 has been paradise for me.  I'm super into rpgs, but I can accept this new form of action rpg for what it is, and love it all the while.  I didn't love ME for its stat-driven combat (which, frankly, sucked,) I loved it for its innovation and story and immersiveness.  ME2 did that all over again, and it did it well.  I've read all the gripes, and while there are some things that I'd love to tweak, I just can't put down ME2.  Let me reiterate an argument I've seen across the pages that has kept things civil in here - just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't make it bad.  Many of the things being tossed about as "broken" are things I actually like.  I would love for this not to degenerate into the "what is an rpg" battle and "is Mass 2 better/worse than Mass 1" arguments that the trolls here feed on.

[Scarecrow_ES]

And it's really all of that last post, Soruyao, that causes me to reaffirm the notion that neither ME game is much of an RPG in a mechanical sense. Ultimately, arguing about which game truly offers the most amount of choice gets almost comical given the huge gap between Mass Effect and most modern western RPGs in that department. It seems like almost a futile arguement that has no real factual winner. Both systems seem to offer the illusion of choice, but little real choice in practice. Pulling any actual differentiation seems to be a matter of both personal preference in playstyle and of creativity in exploiting the system. The only real choice, then, that has any real influence is one of class, and beyond that nothing.



Perhaps then the real issue becomes one of demanding a skill system (amongst other RPG elements) that offer real differentiation and choice. Since neither previous system lives up to more traditional RPG standards and there is no logical gameplay reason for this to be, would it not be possible for the developers just to call on their many years of experience crafting supreme RPG mechanical systems and put one in that was more than just a shallow imposter? (sorry for the harshness of those word choices. Maybe I'm just feeling cranky and entitled).

[Scarecrow_ES]

Darmok... Thanks so much for posting...



We've done a good job, I think, of keeping the conversation civil and intellectual while dealing with issues even as fundemental as "what defines an RPG." I have been reluctant to get into arguements of opinion, but ultimately some of the influences we see at the real heart of some of these other issues really comes down to what we expect from RPGs and their gameplay. For instance, I've noticed that many of the objections to some of my proposals come not from a belief that those systems would not work or that they would offer certain improvements to this or that area of the game, but that the proposals are in opposition to certain gameplay preferences that individuals have. Getting to understand the roots of these preferences is key to the resultant debate.



Just as an example... I have no particular opposition to the new ME2 ammo system in principle. We have decades worth of ammo systems to look back on and they work well enough to be sure. If the ammo system in ME2 worked universally well, you'd see me singing it's praises. Unfortunately it doesn't work universally well, and you'll notice that almost all of the debate here about this system is not about the flaws, but whether these flaws hurt the gameplay. You can like a system and still have it be broken.



I think a lot of the good from this topic comes in really trying to figure out, through this intellectual debate, what would really please the largest number of people - what particular options people like and why. Really get to the root of people's preferences, examine what about a given system appeals to them and just WHY it appeals to them.



For instance, much of the praise for the new ammo system stems from a few key issues: it "encourages" (read: forces) the use of multiple weapon types, and it discourages indiscriminate use of higher-powered weaponry - both of these "praiseworthy" ideals were listed as faults of the original Mass Effect system. Detractors of the new system argue that it does not treat all weapons equally, and that it does not allow continual usage of a player's primary weapon through an entire firefight - two things the original system did well. Rectifying these issues needs to be a goal for the next game. I've put forth one way to do that that seems to please the overwhelming mojority of individuals, even if they truly LIKE the current system (and I get zero arguement from those who praise the old one).



Now, I think most of us fell in love with the Mass Effect series for the excellent use of story and attention to detail in crafting a universe that you truly felt a part of rather than just viewing from the outside. If the mechanical parts of the gameplay can catch up to the level the story parts are sitting at, this series will be a true juggernaut in the industry.

[kmcd5722]

I will say this until the day ME3 comes out:

I preferred (and liked!) the MAKO and the nearly limitless expanse to explore on the barren planets.

I liked the new missions with fleshed out environments, but still I would prefer to have the MAKO back for 10-15 or so planets to explore.

I prefer the ME1 ammo to the new ME2 ammo (mainly because of the last boss). I also preferred upgrading my guns as I see fit. (i.e. I like a deep inventory common in rich RPGs)

I prefer not having the Vanguard completely shafted in ME2.

I prefer the non-loading screens that occurred in ME1, although I certainly thought that for the first few times the loading screens in ME2 were neat.

I prefer talking to the Council/Hackett after missions versus receiving an email/having a mission summary report screen.

I prefer squad banter like that of ME1.

More Biotics is better than less biotics.



Overall, my complaint comes down to the immersion element that gotta stripped out of the game. And I just prefer a deeper RPG system to the one present in ME1 versus the lite version in ME2.



So what did I like about ME2 over ME1? The gameplay, cover system, fighting and all. Not to mention the interrupt system was sweet too. And the characters and the cinematic elements associated with them. ME2 was much more polished and fun to play this time around. ME2 may have been a better "game," but ME1 was a better experience.

[Commander Darmok]

Phew!  Done reading that beast!  And now, as promised (because I know you're all on the edge of your seats waiting for it,) my idea(s.)


Since it's such a hot topic, let's start with ammo.  I won't say that the hybrid idea can't work, nor even that it won't.  However, as the developers have tried it and found it lacking, there was obviously something wrong with it.  Maybe, in the course of this discussion, the solution has been magically found, and all will be well for ME3.  In reality though, we should accept that, since the developers have tried it, it is just as likely that they considered all the options here, and still believed the combat was inferior.  I would like to present a secondary solution, under the assumption that they plan to keep the ammo system as is. 

Tweak #1 - Definitely nerf AR ammo.  Allow customization of combat equip.  Let's say that player A has a real problem running out of sniper rifle ammo.  (My soldier rarely does, and it is my primary weapon, but that's neither here nor there.)  Player A insists on using a sniper rifle for 90% of the time.  Allow Player A to sacrifice taking one of his/her other weapons on a mission in exchange for packing extra ammo.  This player absolutely will be able to spam sniper rifle through all easy fights. 

Tweak #2 - Continue to improve AI so that a person who wants to spam their sniper must account for his choice by picking his squad accordingly.  Increase time for an accurate aim, insist on cover - something to reduce the maneuverability of a sniper.

The reward - a player who wishes to be a background supporting fire will get to do so.  Two powerful squaddies who can deal with the odd flanker will enable a sniper to set up shop and never move.  (Let's be honest - tons of snipers LOVE to do exactly that.) 

The punishment - a player who insists on sniping 100% of the time will find fights for which a sniper rifle simply isn't viable.  At this point, they have to use a sub-standard attack with sub-standard tactics, and really hope their squad can save them.  Bad planning should absolutely make you dead.  If you play a sniper, you really have no business taking Garrus and Legion with you as snipers as well.

Alternative to tweak #1 - assuming the modular armor has significant difference in ME3, one might swap shields for extra ammo - proportionally.  Sure, you can snipe, but you better hope the enemies don't have snipers too, because they'd one-shot you no problem.  (I'd love to see the same restrictions placed on enemies.)

In addition, I love actually needing to use my squad.  Sure, it'd be nice to combine my own powers, but there's a cool wonder twins thing going on when I combine biotics with one of my techs, or Captain Planet when I combine all three.  I definitely think that the squad can add a depth to combat that would more than compensate for the problems we're seeing.  Having more specialist missions would add even more.

Also, add an "off" feature to the auto-aim.  It's horrible.  And the tutorials.

I'll lump my suggestions for armor and weapons into one group, because some of the tweaks I thought of mix the two.  With false bravado: you heard it right here, ladies and gentlemen, I can single-handedly fix the gripes over combat AND loot! 

Weapons - I would love to see a modular approach to them.  You can find new scopes and triggers and barrels and such.  You scan them automatically, and can use them.  You could perhaps also find the licenses, and then sell those for a ton of credits (separate places, of course.)  OR, if you found a weapon for which you had no use, you could sell it to Cerberus or the Alliance for research.  I'm not suggesting the sockets of ME1, I'm talking about actually building your weapons.  I vote to leave the general buff research in there, just out of personal preference.  Once in a while, exploration and intense fights could be rewarded with rare drops, with mods or weapons or armor (or what have you,) so elaborate that they simply can't be reproduced.  Used by Shepard only.

In addition, I think that to solve the weapon variety, we need to have class specific weapons.  Vanguards get extra training in shotguns, so it makes sense that they should be able to wield shotguns that others who had not been trained to use could.  Engineers get pistols, Soldiers get rifles, Infiltraters get snipers, Sentinels get SMGs (including one that is actually effective as a primary weapon.)  But wait, what do Adepts get?  Nothing.  Adepts can, like everyone else in the ME universe except Shepard, wield their biotics as a primary weapon.  (In this case, I think you'd need the power meter, and adepts get a damage bonus, + an extra %200 in their meter or something.)  If a weapon isn't class specific, you use Alliance/Cerberus standard + any personal mods.  If a weapon is class specific, I think there should be four or five options spread out between shops, research, and loot.

Armor - I love the new modular system, and I agree with most of what's been said.  Make it meaningful, and add pieces.  I would add one bit - I think the people who miss loot miss the thrill of a random drop that's actually useful/fun.  NO ONE misses getting what I've seen called "the pointy stick of impotence."  Every once in a while, have a bad guy drop a little piece.  New boots, hell, even a different pattern to paint onto the armor.  Loot can be extremely rare, but if it's 90% useful and always exciting, it will be fun, and not the beast that was pressing "convert to Omni-Gel" 100 times per battle.  Plus, if you can only sell a fraction of what you find, it won't over-inflate the economy.  As far as the team goes, I'll simply agree with what's been said and move on.

For the helmet, I steal someone else's idea.  It's stupid that Shepard wouldn't wear a helmet (or something like it) into combat.  If not for protection, for the things a helmet could do in the future.  It's equally stupid for Shepard to make out with his lady through a helmet.  The Dragon Age system is nice, but they're missing a great opportunity in ME.  When Shepard enters a safe area, his helmet retracts into his uniform much the same way the guns do.  No toggle, just a cool animation that makes sense in-world.

Scanning - I'm worried that your system may become just as tedious.  There's no way to tell without playing it.  However, I will say that you hit the nail on the head when you say that it needs variety.  One mini-game is enough, there just need to be more ways of finding resources.  Scanning should be something I do because I want a particular upgrade right now, not because I have to spend hours on it.  Have paragon/renegade sidequests - save/or take over an Eezo station, for example.  Add a hand-held scanner to Shepard's omni-tool.  If he's off on planet X, if he finds near some abandoned building a huge platinum vein (a la Jed Clampett,) he stakes a claim, and it pays off over time, like in the original idea.  Add an economy.  Salvage derelict vessels.  There's a true potential here that gets lost in mini-games.

And now for something completely different.  Some things that I would like to second, or propose, that I think would just polish the game.

More squad interactions, planetside is nice, but the two Normandy interactions we got were awesome.  They don't have to be as in depth as that (although I definitely want more!,) but once in a while, I want to see Mordin running tests to see who's screwing the varren to bring scale itch on board.  Joker should get up to pee, and everyone gets out of his way - maybe he doesn't come back for like 20 minutes.

The side-missions were definitely a step in the right direction.  I hated side-missions in ME1, not because they weren't interesting, but because all of the combat got in the way of the story.  I forgot who I would talk to at the end of the corridor, because the corridors were all the same.  In this one, they were varied, and diverse, and altogether too short (although the fact that I'm left wanting more is probably a good sign.)  Quality > Quantity.  I would like less linearity, although if you look at it, ME1 wasn't that much more open.  The only real sandbox reward was the Prothean trinket, which gave you a nice short story to read.  I want to explore, but only in that the exploration is quality.  I'd rather have two subtantial forks in the road than a sandbox with a rock, a worm, and a box in it.

I'm sure there's more, but it's been a long day for me.  It'll come to me later.

[Commander Darmok]

Oh, a couple addendums:



kcmd - I LOVE my new vanguard. The challenge on insanity, and the thrill of successfully using charge + shotgun in spite of that challenge was awesome.



Also, to everyone, I must laud the general proper use of spelling and grammar. As an English teacher, I can't read most of the textian dribble on teh inturwebz.



Finally, while I hope the devs read this, I hope they don't incorporate a single idea. As I read, I saw lots of good discussion, which spawned new and better ideas, as well as clear and concise explanations. What I hope happens is that the devs sit down, roleplay for a few hours using this thread as a script, and then just continue the discussion. None of us are professionals, but I think the professionals can benefit from this discussion. If they can role play us more effectively (this thread gives a permanent +10 replay value buff to their planning skill,) they may come up with ideas that are better than anything we could dream of. I sincerely hope so.

[kmcd5722]

Commander Darmok wrote...

kcmd - I LOVE my new vanguard. The challenge on insanity, and the thrill of successfully using charge + shotgun in spite of that challenge was awesome.

I would as well, had it not taken me a thousand reloads to understand when and how to use it.  When I said shafted, really I should have said that if I don't like charge I can retrain Shep to learn something new (or, if BW decides that you are stuck with it, at least let me re-map it on the controller... that's what really bugged me, when I accidentally tapped Y and sent myself zooming across the map into 40 enemies and had to reload the whole sequence)

However, gotta love the new auto-save, much better than ME1.

[Commander Darmok]

Yeah, there was a steep learning curve, but the payout was equal to the risk. I felt like a total badass. My favorite moment, I accidentally charged the Colossus, but dammit - I WON. It was awesome!

[Scarecrow_ES]

Again, Darmok, thanks for posting. I'm always happy when someone comes along that wants to contribute to the discussion, no matter what side they're on. I do find it odd though that the only ones that want to stay and same more than a few sentences are the ones who disagree with me, but I suppose if you agree then what more is there to say than that?

[Commander Darmok]

That's just the nature of the beast my friend. In any discussion, without anything to add or counter, there's no discussion. Maybe come up with some more things that need tweaking?

[Soruyao]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

Again, Darmok, thanks for posting. I'm always happy when someone comes along that wants to contribute to the discussion, no matter what side they're on. I do find it odd though that the only ones that want to stay and same more than a few sentences are the ones who disagree with me, but I suppose if you agree then what more is there to say than that?

Exactly.  There were a bunch of people awhile back who said "PUT THIS MAN ON THE PAYROLL BIOWARE" and then returned to whence they came.

I agree with you about almost everything related to equipment and items and scanning and the like.  I said it once and it didn't really need to be said again.   The one thing I mainly disagree with you on is the thing that's the most interesting to discuss.

I don't really think there's much discussion left to have about it though because I feel that use of a player's entire arsenal should be heavily encouraged.   It seems like such a waste to create a class like the soldier who has an entire armory on their backs, and then have a player treat those weapons like mere decoration.   It doesn't strike me as smart play, and I think smart play should be encouraged at higher difficulties.

If we switch to an overheat system, I think the rock paper scissors defense mechanic should be much harsher.  If you try to gun down a krogan with an AR, it should take a really long time and usually result in your death.   A soldier should go "I think I should use my shotgun here, or else I'm going to die!"

In the current system, it's more like "Maybe I should use my shotgun/heavy pistol here, so I have sniper ammo for when I'll need it more."

At the very least, they should be thinking something other than "welp, shooting time again lolol!"

Of course, on lower difficulties, it should be easier to get through combat without any thought at all.  At no point in casual or even normal mode should a player be forced or even strongly encouraged to do anything.   Normal mode infiltrators should get 3 to 4 times as much ammo as they do now for their snipers, so they can go nuts.   In a hybrid system, normal mode should throw so many heat sinks at the player they can do whatever they want.

On insanity, you should have to play smart and be careful or face some sort of consequences.  (And I think death shouldn't be the only ones.)    Players who understand their entire toolkit should do better than players who only understand one tool.   (To extend the analogy further: If all you know how to use is a hammer, then when it comes time to unscrew something, you'll be in trouble.)

Modifié par Soruyao, 13 mars 2010 - 06:50 .

[EternalWolfe]

Soruyao wrote...

I don't really think there's much discussion left to have about it though because I feel that use of a player's entire arsenal should be heavily encouraged.   It seems like such a waste to create a class like the soldier who has an entire armory on their backs, and then have a player treat those weapons like mere decoration.   It doesn't strike me as smart play, and I think smart play should be encouraged at higher difficulties.

One way to help this may be to add in the weapon-specific skills, as I mentioned before.  This gives weapons unique powers that may or may not be useful in different situations.  For anyone but a soldier this is just another skill(since 3 have only 2 weapons and the other 2 have only 3, with only a single 'higher' weapon), but to a soldier, switching to a certain weapon to use its skill in the right place and time would be a tactical decision, just like useing a power as an adept or tech.

If its done right.  If it can be done right.  *shrug*

Note: I would support a change of the skills from ME1 - Carnage has its uses, but Marksman, Overkill, Assassination would be better replaced with skills with a more active use - I'm just unsure as to what those skills should be.

[Soruyao]

EternalWolfe wrote...
One way to help this may be to add in the weapon-specific skills, as I mentioned before.  This gives weapons unique powers that may or may not be useful in different situations.  For anyone but a soldier this is just another skill(since 3 have only 2 weapons and the other 2 have only 3, with only a single 'higher' weapon), but to a soldier, switching to a certain weapon to use its skill in the right place and time would be a tactical decision, just like useing a power as an adept or tech.

If its done right.  If it can be done right.  *shrug*

Note: I would support a change of the skills from ME1 - Carnage has its uses, but Marksman, Overkill, Assassination would be better replaced with skills with a more active use - I'm just unsure as to what those skills should be.

Carnage was the only skill in ME1 that wasn't simply "make my gun better."   Overkill and marksman were particularly bad because their only real use was to bypass the overheat mechanic entirely for a little while.   Assassination was actually interesting, but fills the same combat function as assassin cloak.   I don't really think any of those three skills would add anything to the game as we currently have it.

Carnage, however, was a fun and interesting skill.   It made using a shotgun dynamic and interesting, and it looked cool.   I would support it's inclusion in ME3 or even ME2, definitely.  Heck, it's even in the game.  Most krogans use it all the time.  (It's especially noticable with the tank-bred krogan at the start of grunt's recruitment mission.  He fires it pretty often!)

It also makes sense for it to be attached to shotguns, since it addresses the weakness shotguns have, (range) while also being useful in normal shotgun combat ranges.  (When you use it up close, your character did this neat "avert gaze" motion that was just neato.)

It'd be neat to brainstorm what the other weapon skills would be, so I'll do that.

Sniper:  What is the sniper's greatest weakness? (besides ammo?)  Close range fights with multiple enemies, such as husks or varren.   I think the best solution would be something like this!   (Sorry I couldn't find a better video, but you get the general idea.)

A laser beam dealy would be something you could use to spray over a group of husks that are in your face and get a little breathing room.   You could also use it with your scope to kill something at range and just save a ltitle ammo, of course.  It even works thematically, since snipers are about precision, and what's more precise than a laser?   

I'm sleepy so I'll get to the rest later.  Here's some random ideas though.

I wonder what an AR would be.  It doesn't really have any weaknesses.  Oh, but hey!  As long as I'm getting inspiration from halo, why not turn your gun into a needler for a short while.   Slower homing bullets that combine in an enemy and detonate!   It'd be neat and it would work thematically because... well...  it wouldn't make much sense really, but it'd be neat!

Maybe for SMGs, it could be causing them to ignore shields for a clip.   It would be pretty effective since you'd be able to kill a krogan or several weaker enemies quickly.   I don't know, would that be fun enough to be interesting?

I have a neat idea for heavy pistols though!   Exploding ammo!   For your next 5 or so shots (maybe a whole clip?), when you shoot something, it'll have a little red dot on it.  After a second and a half, it'll detonate.   Headshots would do more damage, of course.

Modifié par Soruyao, 13 mars 2010 - 01:34 .