903 réponses à ce sujet

[Chaoswind]

Hey don't get me wrong, getting experience per mission, is not completely bad, but as Scarecrow said it kills the mood, You are ALWAYS awarded (1000/1250) exp max and for that reason it KILLS the replay value... think about it.



If you began a second playthrough in ME1 A LOT of things would be different from the first one you did... however in ME2 everything pretty much stays the same unless you FORCE yourself to not be yourself, in short the experience of the game stays the same unless you force yourself to pick choices you didn't like.



In ME1 things naturally change... whether is weapons customization, or the way you do a mission, there is always a way to do things in another way.

[EternalWolfe]

Chaoswind wrote...

Hey don't get me wrong, getting experience per mission, is not completely bad, but as Scarecrow said it kills the mood, You are ALWAYS awarded (1000/1250) exp max and for that reason it KILLS the replay value... think about it.

If you began a second playthrough in ME1 A LOT of things would be different from the first one you did... however in ME2 everything pretty much stays the same unless you FORCE yourself to not be yourself, in short the experience of the game stays the same unless you force yourself to pick choices you didn't like.

In ME1 things naturally change... whether is weapons customization, or the way you do a mission, there is always a way to do things in another way.

Personally, i don't see getting less xp for choosing not to kill someone, or choosing to kill from the mako as increasing replay value, and choices aren't completly connected to xp - a game can have a multitude of choices while having only missions xp.  To be exact, ME1 didn't even have that many choices in how to complete a mission - Noveria, Feros, a few parts in Virmire, and a couple of side-missions.  Every other mission was 'go to this planet, land, drive to base, kill everything, loot important information/items/whatever, profit'.  Although I do agree ME1 had more choices then ME2 had.

That said, I'm not against kill xp.  I'm certainly not against other forms of xp - codex, for example.  You explored, found something, got xp for it.  Ok, exploration should be rewarded.

But when your exclusive choices, such as not to kill someone, shouldn't cut into your xp.  I don't see why my good little diplomat who talked her way through a fight shouldn't get as much xp for that, as my '****' character, who blew everyones head off and laughed about it got for killing them all.

In short, if one character can get xp by slaughtering the enemy left and right, the other character should still be able to keep up on xp, for talking their way through it.  Call it RP xp, if want.

[Chaoswind]

So you say we get exp by talking, exploring, scanning, getting codex entries and completing the mission... and not by how many enemies you kill? well is fair by me, but you should earn a little experience by killing, even if only a little.



Again ME1 did this just fine, you got experience by talking, and everything, I do agree we could award people more experience by scanning/talking and less by killing.

[EternalWolfe]

Chaoswind wrote...

So you say we get exp by talking, exploring, scanning, getting codex entries and completing the mission... and not by how many enemies you kill? well is fair by me, but you should earn a little experience by killing, even if only a little.

Again ME1 did this just fine, you got experience by talking, and everything, I do agree we could award people more experience by scanning/talking and less by killing.

I remember no places where you got extra xp from talking.  I remember getting xp for codex entries from talking to someone, I remember getting quest xp for finishing a quest that ended with talking to someone, but anytime you have a choice of talking or killing the enemy, slaughtering the enemy got you xp, possilby some items and credits, while talking got you . . . less fighting, no xp whatsoever(maybe some credits depending on which mission).

Maybe I just missed it(if you know any specific points, I'd like to know so I can check on my next playthrough).  I do know following the less violent path always ended up with you haveing less xp at the end.

And I didn't mean no xp for kills, just xp for kills and for rping(talking your way through, some extra xp at the end of the mission if you managed to do it stealth-like(not something actually possible in ME2).  Like I said, Having different rewards for going different paths is one thing, but character devolopment is something that shouldn't be halted because you choose to be non-violent, plus it opens missions up for more paths to finish the mission, without being punished for not going the most violent route possible.  Positive reinforcement for RPing, i suppose you could say.

Basically, when two exclusive paths are given(such as talking down a fight vs killing everyone, or slaughtering the army vs sneaking past it undetected), you should gain similar xp for either action, whatever other rewards might be given.  Mission based xp is the easist form - no matter what you do, you gain the same xp, but other systems work just as well(when done right), while still giving people their instant gratification when killing.

I'll stop rambling now.

[Scarecrow_ES]

In reality, I think enemy kill xp really didn't change anything for players who played honestly (ie didn't grind for higher levels). Truthfully, the limited amount of xp you might have lost from avoiding combat through persuasive conversation really pales in comparison to the greater whole you'd get on the rest of the mission. Losing that 15 xp for not killing said diplomat or whatever is a drop in the bucket compared to the potentially 1000's of xp you'd get on the mission as a whole, and of course to the mission xp you'll get just for finishing.



What really gets to me is the greater sense in ME2 that you really have no choice in developing your character beyond what you do from a story perspective. Don't get me wrong, I think the ME series takes story-telling heads and shoulders above what you get in most games, and it really feels like every action you take has a tangible result. But as far as actually developing your character, not so much. ME1 was RPG-light anyway, so it wasn't likely you were going to see something on the level of one of Bethesda's RPGs as far as development in ME2, but I think it would have been reasonable to expect that at least you'd have as much control in ME1.



I don't know what it is. The "chapter" type game structure? The significantly reduced character options (whether or not they have less of a tangible effect on character build compared to ME1)? The very linear "set piece" mission structure? I don't know. Some people have mentioned comparisons to Gears of War. Of course they think that's flattering, but personally I couldn't stand Gears of War. In fact, Gears is one of two games on the 360 that I bought, played maybe 3 hours of, and immediately took it back to the store for a trade-in because I was so disgusted with the gameplay. The other was Perfect Dark Zero. Of course, I'm not really happy about the fact that you can more closely compare ME2 with just about any genre BUT RPGs now. I mean, some people mention it's like Gears-style combat with upgrade elements. I've said it's a lot like Resident Evil 4 with less tanky controls (I'll also go on record as saying RE4 was another game that I absolutely loved as a game, but hated as a sequel to the series, much like ME2).



I think in a way that what BioWare ended up doing was narrowing the focus of the gameplay to accomodate a more simple hashing out of the story, which ended up chopping out a lot of the real choice in character development. Make a better story by cutting out anything that could make telling that story more complicated. You know what I mean?

[Andaius20]

I have one point of contention there for you Scarecrow. Bethsoft doesn't make RPG's that give you any sort of C&C or development result. both OB and FO3 your railroaded into set story lines. Nothing really makes a differance in your choices and they both have crappy character development, as you ALWAYS end up with everything maxed.



I don't really think there is only NWN possible with the in depth PC development your talking about.

[Scarecrow_ES]

I dunno about that Andaius. It is difficult if not darn near impossible to max a character out in Oblivion. It might be possible to get up there, but really you'll have to play the game very methodically to produce skill increases in precise increments in relation to a specific character build... it's mind-boggling, really. In Fallout 3, it really wasn't possible to get a truly maxed character before Broken Steel. Even if you chose the right perks to let you take full advantage of skill books, your SPECIAL configuration was mostly set. You couldn't max them all. Only after Broken Steel did it become possible to max SPECIALS and Skills. For the most part though, both Oblivion and Fallout 3 offer a greater degree of specialization than Mass Effect offers - especially Oblivion. Mass Effect just has never really embraced this super high level of character development.



You're right about story development though. If there is any area in which the Mass Effect series truly excels, it's in presenting the player with decisions that have a truly tangable effect on the story. But really, that's they only claim to fame the series has. In every other respect, there is a western RPG out there that does it better. If BioWare can find a way to finally combine their truly superior story-telling with the gameplay and depth that can compete with the best WRPGs have to offer, I think the Mass Effect series would have no equal.

[Andaius20]

The problem with that, is in FO3 SPECIAL was pretty meaningless compared to what it used to be in the originals. All you needed was Intel set to 9 in the beginning and you had all you need to maxing out your FO3 characters in no time. You didn't really have to think all that much just know the respawning skill books and not put points into them. Same with OB, I had a maxed out MAge in not too long.So you'd end up with the same charcter as everyone else that played the game.

Anyway we're veering off topic.

Modifié par Andaius20, 23 mars 2010 - 08:34 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

Did anyone else notice... well, probably not, but I did... that Kasumi has the ability to use the tactical cloak and when she's cloaked she can unleash what is basically a one-hit-kill melee attack? That's suspiciously EXACTLY what I suggested be a bonus when evolving tactical cloak for Shepard within a week or two after the game came out. Coincidence? Probably. But still, there is that slim glimmer of hope that this topic is having a positive effect on gameplay.

[yuncas]

BBBuuuuummmMMMMMMMPPPPPPPP!

[Scarecrow_ES]

Thanks. Not nearly enough controversy here to keep this topic on the front page.

[yuncas]

Any thoughts on adding a section on the hammerhead into the topic?

[llinsane1ll]

Why is this not stuck? The Mass Effect 3 wishlist that's stuck is pretty good but this thread is way more thorough and should replace the ME3 WL...

[Raphael diSanto]

Chaoswind wrote...

Hey don't get me wrong, getting experience per mission, is not completely bad, but as Scarecrow said it kills the mood, You are ALWAYS awarded (1000/1250) exp max and for that reason it KILLS the replay value... think about it.

If you began a second playthrough in ME1 A LOT of things would be different from the first one you did... however in ME2 everything pretty much stays the same unless you FORCE yourself to not be yourself, in short the experience of the game stays the same unless you force yourself to pick choices you didn't like.

In ME1 things naturally change... whether is weapons customization, or the way you do a mission, there is always a way to do things in another way.

Uh, forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't that why it's a roleplaying gaming?

Or do you -only- play yourself throughout the game? Is that what you mean by 'force yourself not to be yourself'? I don't understand what the deal is with getting exp per kill and getting exp per mission is or how that affects replay value. I surely don't have to 'force msyelf to not be myself' when playing either game.

I play a role. (Hence, role-playing game).Some of my shepards share certain personality characteristics with me, some of them are nothing like me.

Heading for my 6th playthrough of both ME1 and ME2 right now, and my experience in all previous playthroughs has been very different, because each time, my Shepards are very different.

I mean, sure, you only really get two choices to each decision, but that's not a failing of ME2 specifically. The Paragon/Renegade system inherently means that there's only two real choices to each individual decision, but the sum total of all decisions makes for very different gaming experiences in both ME1 and ME2.

Roleplaying, after all, in its most basic and pure form, is nothing but improvisational method acting. It doesn't need gear. It doesn't need levels. It doesn't need exp. It doesn't even need skill trees, but in a cRPG situation, we're required to have them, because computers are nothing more than really fast calculators and so everything must be brought down to numbers.

But within the confines of the choices made available to me as I progress through the game - I am free to play the role I have chosen, free to make the decisions that I deem are appropriately IC for the Shepard that I'm currently playing and his or her personality as I've defined it.

That, to me, is the essence of a roleplaying game, and why ME2 (to me) is just as much an RPG as ME1 was.

[Raphael diSanto]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Basically, when two exclusive paths are given(such as talking down a fight vs killing everyone, or slaughtering the army vs sneaking past it undetected), you should gain similar xp for either action, whatever other rewards might be given.  Mission based xp is the easist form - no matter what you do, you gain the same xp, but other systems work just as well(when done right), while still giving people their instant gratification when killing.

I'll stop rambling now.

This, this and more this.

Also, mission-based exp allows gameplay designers to incorporate situations where you don't ever run out of enemies, or they can put in an overwhelming force of enemies, and peolpe can't farm the system by just killing them all to artificially inflate their level.

There are various reasons why a designer may want to do this - To put the players under pressure, to add a sense of urgency, etc.

[Raphael diSanto]

I forgot to mention - Scarecrow.. That's an amazing amount of thought and effort gone into your original post - I've read most of it carefully (and I'll finish reading it later) .. I could comment and give feedback on each individual item, so I'll ask - Would you rather that here, in the thread, or in a PM?



The only thing I'd add right here is that while your goal of coming up with changes that all ME players will like is obviously laudable - It's also massively unrealistic, as I'm sure you no doubt realize. There are always issues within games that completely polarize people - Sometimes workarounds can be found that dodge these issues - Sometimes not.



I still applaud you for your efforts though, sir.

[TafkanX]

The posting has, in fact, slowed down quite a bit. Seeing as I've been lurking in here for a few weeks I guess I'll go ahead and chime in.

First off I'm very pleased with the general flow of this discussion. On the whole things have been kept very civil and most of the discussion seems to be well thought out. It's quite refreshing. Cheers to the OP and everybody else for that.

With regards to the actual proposals set forth, by and large I think they sound plausible. I'm not 100% on board with every one, but neither am I dead set against any particular one. In particular I liked your suggestions about implementing a hybrid heat/thermal clip system, the power "meter", and to some extent your suggestions regarding planet scanning.

I'll tackle the heat system first. The way you describe your proposal is exactly how I envisioned the system working when they first mentioned they were introducing thermal clips. Imagine my horror upon discovering they had instead swapped in an ammo system and changed the name (presumably to protect the innocent). I loved the way heat worked in the first game. It was different, something I hadn't seen in a "shooter" before. To move to an ammo system feels like an incredible backwards step. Your system would give me that back, plus give me an option for when those pesky tech enemies overheat my weapon. Kudos.

As per the power bar, I'm not terribly opposed to the current global cooldown but your suggestion would help my adept become slightly less dependent on her squadmates to bust combos, so I'm game. Some would argue that is a bad thing, but hey- Shepard's a supreme badass. He took down Saren and Sovereign, and now the Collectors as well. He eats thresher maws for breakfast. It stands to reason that he could manage to lift and throw in rapid succession (or whatever).

About your planet scanning suggestions, I'm not sure making it more complex is the answer but if it could be made entertaining (read: enjoyable, not simply tolerable) then I would support it. The ability to trade surplus for credits and/or desired resources (even if it's at a loss) would be incredibly useful. Indeed, the idea of a dynamic galactic economy sounds like a hoot. That might be asking for too much, but if they are willing to take the time to make it work I can get behind it.

All in all, this thread has been quite satisfying (if incredibly time consuming) to follow and I hope that the developers have a good hard look at the suggestions presented and at least take them into consideration when developing the next installment. There's a whole lot more going on in here I'd love to discuss in greater depth but I think I've ranted enough for one post. Cheers.

*editted for formatting correction

Modifié par TafkanX, 27 mars 2010 - 02:39 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

Raphael... if you feel you have particular comments that would add to the discussion, then certainly I would encourage you to add them here to the topic. As noted, the topic has started to slow down a bit as more of us get closer and closer in our basic opinions, so any additional viewpoints that can be added will either further cement opinion or help to sway it one way or another. Both types of comments are much appreciated. If you feel you have opinions that are best not expressed in the topic, then by all means I would accept a PM as well.



One thing I'll note about "roleplaying." It isn't merely having choice that matters. Many video games that are not traditionally roleplaying games give us choice. Many action games, some FPS, and even your vast sandbox games like GTA give us choice. It's not simply the choices we make, or a game allowing us to make those choices, that defines an RPG. It's the ability to shape the digital representation of our character to reflect something very basic inside of each of us... to make the self we see on screen reflect some of the self we have inside. In that way, the character becomes US, rather than us PLAYING a predefined character. In that way, the Mass Effect series is far less an RPG than most modern western RPGs, but still more in many ways than RPGs past.

[Cascadus]

This is pretty much the most comprehensive, well-detailed and overall the best compendium of improvements that could be made to ME that I have ever seen. I salute you sir.

And because I can't be arsed to read through the entire topic and see if this has already been covered, but have you had any ideas on uncharted world exploration ala the Mako and the Hammerhead? Both have been criticized (Mako for it's handling and the Hammerhead because all it's missions were linear as all hell and the fact it's armour appears to be made out of paper mache) and it'd be interesting to see an educated take on how it'd work.

[Scarecrow_ES]

TafkanX... Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you liked the hybrid heat system for weapons. I think if it were implimented it would please the overwhelming majority of players, including the few hold-outs here once they get their hands on it.



I know some people have not been in favor of the energy system for powers I proposed, but I really think it brings us closer to what the devs have been looking for. Why is it that in cutscenes, power users are such badasses, but when it comes to gameplay they're completely wimpy? I mean, they make a big deal about Jack literally ripping a whole space station to shreds, but when she's in my squad she can barely squeek out a fraction of that power. I'm just trying to give us a little taste of that power without going wild on it. I think power-focused classes would do far better under this system.



As for planet scanning/resource management, my approach was "well if we have to have it, let's at least make it worth spending the time to do it." The hope was we could make the process suck less by breaking it up and making each of the smaller pieces less tedious. Of course, there are people out there who hated the hacking and lockpicking mini-games too, so obviously I won't be able to please everyone by just making one long, crappy mini-game into a few short, less crappy ones, but at least it's a step in a better direction. Also, if we can give players more options with how to get resources, and more things to do with them once they're on board, maybe we can make this little part of the game something people will WANT to invest time in, rather than something they're dreading to do every time they find a research project that they don't have enough of a material to make.

[Scarecrow_ES]

I have a very crappy internet connection here because I live out in the middle of nowhere, so I haven't been able to download the Hammerhead pack and give it a test drive. However, what I've heard about the Hammerhead DLC leads me to believe that it was a significant waste of time and resources. As I understand it, the missions are ridiculously short and lacking in any substance whatsoever. Personally I'd have preferred the Mako if that's indeed the case.



I was never particularly opposed to the Mako in ME1. It was a fully implemented feature that could certainly have used significant improvement, but it was a solid concept from a gameplay perspective that just didn't really meet all its potential. There were a couple of very good reasons for this. The controls were somewhat poor. The planet surfaces were not sufficiently playtested to ensure that navigation over them in the Mako would work smoothly. Most planetary exploration was bare and largely unnecessary given the scope of a mission.



Controls could have been tweaked, certainly. There are literally dozens of layouts to choose from in the wider videogame catalog, so a fix could easily have been found. They weren't HORRIBLE mind you, but needed tweeking.



Planet surfaces, I think, were designed to be pretty or interesting, not for ease of navigation. There were frequently areas that the Mako couldn't navigate. I remember getting stuck a number of times for which the best solution was to return to the Normandy and re-drop onto the planet. This could have been remedied by simply limiting the slope angle for the majority of a planet's surface to a degree the Mako was sure to be able to hump over.



As for landing on a planet and having nothing to do, well... It made little sense why, if we knew in orbit just where a mission location was, why we simply couldn't drop the Mako right there. Why did we have to land miles away and drive there? Having the shuttle craft in ME2 negates the need to have planetary exploration for exploration's sake. However, there were also missions and whatnot in ME1 where you had only a vague idea of where you were going, or where you needed the Mako to traverse the planet's surface from one place to another (Therum, Noveria, Feros, Virmire).



I would like to see real exploration missions like those make a come-back. You know, give us a signal to track or have us try to find a hidden bunker or try to track down a missing module that could be in multiple locations. Please don't make us drive all over steep mountain slopes for an hour to locate a gold deposit and an Asari writing to satisfy a miscellaneous fetch quest. I also wouldn't mind the more involved but largely linear point a to b runs we saw in the main ME1 missions too, in limited fashion.



Because we now have the shuttle and the ground vehicle, we can have both kinds of scenarios... ones where we know where we're going and can drop right in there, or ones where we don't and we need to explore further. If we limit free-run planetary exploration to those occasions when it is truly necessary and create gameplay around it that makes use of the mechanic in interesting ways, I'd be happy to have a new "Mako" around, and certainly it would be a bigger deal when it actually came time to use it.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Bump because it deserves it.

[Soruyao]

mrfoo1 wrote...

If anything the Hammerhead and Firewalker pack was a beta test to get feedback.

I think I'll weigh in on the mako and the hammerhead, since I'm a huge sucker for vehicles. (Keep in mind this is all from an insanity player's perspective)  I think there were some issues with both the design of the hammerhead itself and of course the missions.

I think that if I were to ask any shepard which vehicle were superior for combat, he or she would likely have chosen the mako.   This is due to the fact that the mako had both better firepower and better defenses.

The rocket thingy we fire has homing that is both very innacurate (it rarely hits what it decides to aim at) and obtrusive (it rarely aims at what you were pointing towards), and even when it hits, it can take a very long time to kill anything.  At ranges that would have been easy for the mako, combat in the hammerhead becomes trial and error stick pokes to get the perfect angle for your rockets to start hitting something.

That wouldn't be an issue except for the fact that the mako appears to have no shields whatsoever.  If I float 10 feet away from a single infantry geth and just trade shots with him, I'll blow up before he dies.   o.o   Here's a little story:  One time there were three geth on a platform above me, so I used my hover to jump up and fire some rockets and then drop down to regenerate.   I died before I hit the ground.  

Sometimes it feels like I'd be better off on foot.  

Of course enemies don't seem to attack you at all outside of a certain range, so it's pretty easy (but dull) to stand outside that range and pelt them with rockets.  Bleh.  I would like it's surivability slightly increased, with a slightly more granular indicator of health than beeping>on fire> dead.

Ramming enemies is much more satisfying than it was in the mako, but the fact that I get cut up so easily means I can only ever use it if I clear out all infantry around a collossus and then ram it.    Random note: Enemies in these missions appear to have about 10 seconds to get back to their feet before they just give up and kill themselves.  You can hop up and down on a collossus for a few seconds and it just... dies.   It's like it died of shame.  I approve and would like more opportunities to do this.   Survivability would help me rely more on collision than on my rockets. Here's another related story:  I had full health and I rammed a rocket drone.  I blew up.    D:

So, in combat it's a bit weaker than the mako.  However, if you asked shepard what vehicle to use if you needed to get somewhere fast in rough and dangerous terrain, he'd point you to the hammerhead.    The hammerhead SHINES when it's given interesting platforming challenges.   Zipping around in volcanoes was really fun and satisfying, and I would really have liked more opportunities for it.   I also thought blowing up a wall and zipping through it was cool, but they only ever gave me one such wall.

I think the best kind of mission for the mako would be a platformy mission where you're being persued by something and you need to go really fast and avoid explosions and breaking scenery and you need to blow up walls and fight a few enemies on the way.   Colossuses are okay, especially if they're near cliffs, and rocket infantry are okay too because you can dodge them, but lay way back on the gatling infantry like the primes, they're too powerful.   In other words, force us (or at least encourage us) into close quarters with stuff you need to dodge, and then give us opportunities to ram them off of things, then remind us we need to be going really fast and get the flow moving again.

Now for the missions themselves:  They are short, but that's been done to death so I won't dwell on it.   I think the starter mission was fine for getting us in the swing of things and teaching us how to use the thing.   I think some of the brevity could have been fixed by combining it with the mission where we have to escape an exploding volcano.  (That mission was fun, though I think the "on foot" section would have been a perfect place for some infantry combat and a change of pace!)

The mission on the snow planet with the freezing mechanic was really lame.  I didn't understand why the yellow circles were both unfreezing my hammerhead and giving me sattelite data, and I don't understand what gameplay goals that mission was trying to accomplish.  There was nothing interesting happening story-wise, and there certainly wasn't anything interesting happening gameplay wise.

The artifact mission was fine except for the combat issues outlined above and the fact that you can't save.   Why?  Why can't I save in the middle of a mission?  I don't understand and it makes me sad, especially coupled with the fact that I have ramming geth, and it gets me killed a lot.

The generator mission was also kind of cool, I think.   The army of rocket enemies posed a more interesting combat challenge than the geth did because I could get in kind of close and dodge, and at close range the rockets are much more accurate.   I wish ramming them didn't 1shot me though.   I hope I learn what the thing inside there was in future DLC, I was seriously intrigued by it.

I think the hammerhead is a cool concept (it looks really cool too!) and I kind of like the idea behind the way they're putting together missions, it just needs a lot of tweaking before it really shines.