Again? Okay!
Scarecrow’s Compendium of Proposals to BioWare for Mass Effect Gameplay Improvements (UPDATE 2)
Débuté par
Scarecrow_ES
, févr. 02 2010 09:23
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
Retour en haut
#853
Posté 24 août 2010 - 03:39
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
Holy Cow! It's been days since I've had the time to even check up on the thread. I've just been so incredibly busy lately that getting online for anything other than concentrated work has been impossible. I can't think of any time in the last several years I've ever been as busy as I've been in the last few weeks. I'm hoping things will die back down for me soon and I can devote more time to... well... anything, really.
#854
Posté 24 août 2010 - 09:15
Valmarn
-
- Members
- 558 messages
First off, I just want to give you my sincere thanks for taking the time to type up what I'm sure a lot of us have been thinking.
The hybrid weapon overheat system is golden. I'm relatively new to the forums, and it's great to see that someone took the words out of my mouth, so clearly and concisely.
After reading through section 4, I get the feeling that you're more disappointed in Mass Effect 2's excessively streamlined talent system than you're letting on. If that is the case, I share your sentiment, and agree that the talent evolution concept was a step in the right direction.
We might be on the same page, as far as revamping skill point assignment, as well.
The idea that I had was, instead of spending 4 points to evolve a talent at the 4th rank, each talent is evolved after spending 4 or 5 points, and it costs 2 points to evolve the talent. The talent can then be evolved after another 4 or 5 points.
To illustrate, in case I'm rambling too much, here's what I mean:
|1|1|1|1|1| 2 |1|1|1|1|1| 2 |
As you mentioned, the tiered skill tree system of Mass Effect 2 is definitely bone of contention.
IMO, any skill point system that doesn't allow you to spend the points in any way you choose, without ending up with extra points that can't be spent, is a failure.
Talent Evolution = Win
Tiered Skill Point System = Fail
The hybrid weapon overheat system is golden. I'm relatively new to the forums, and it's great to see that someone took the words out of my mouth, so clearly and concisely.
After reading through section 4, I get the feeling that you're more disappointed in Mass Effect 2's excessively streamlined talent system than you're letting on. If that is the case, I share your sentiment, and agree that the talent evolution concept was a step in the right direction.
We might be on the same page, as far as revamping skill point assignment, as well.
The idea that I had was, instead of spending 4 points to evolve a talent at the 4th rank, each talent is evolved after spending 4 or 5 points, and it costs 2 points to evolve the talent. The talent can then be evolved after another 4 or 5 points.
To illustrate, in case I'm rambling too much, here's what I mean:
|1|1|1|1|1| 2 |1|1|1|1|1| 2 |
As you mentioned, the tiered skill tree system of Mass Effect 2 is definitely bone of contention.
IMO, any skill point system that doesn't allow you to spend the points in any way you choose, without ending up with extra points that can't be spent, is a failure.
Talent Evolution = Win
Tiered Skill Point System = Fail
Modifié par Valmarn, 24 août 2010 - 09:18 .
#857
Posté 28 août 2010 - 02:08
JLBoyyy
-
- Members
- 328 messages
Another? I don't think this is healthy then...
#859
Posté 02 septembre 2010 - 06:42
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
Bumping is ok if not done excessively. Since we're not doing it over and over again (for instance in a one hour period), then it should be fine. I mean once every three days isn't going to cause trouble for anyone. If I had more time these days to make it in here to do it myself, I would... trust me. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your perspective, a series of situations that are going on concurrently in my personal life are eating up all of my time, so I can't spend much, if any, time in the forums on a daily basis. Plus, my connection out here in the middle of nowhere is atrocious, and it can take roughly 10 minutes of time just to get into my own thread, let alone read replies and post new ones.
Valmarn... I can't say I'm particularly saddened by the streamlined approach Mass Effect 2 took with character development IN THEORY. Mass Effect 1 was already light on the RPG elements, but threw those elements at you in such a way as to have you believe there was more depth there than actually existed. Abilities and skills were all jumbled up, and certain attributes of a single gameplay concept were often broken up into multiple "skill" trees. In actuality, the system was fairly shallow, and most people were often funneled toward a common end result. It isn't to say that variance in character customization wasn't possible, just that most people wouldn't be able to find it.
Mass Effect 2 simply removed the illusion of depth. All it did was say "most people are following this fairly linear path in character development, so let's just remove all the tertiary stuff and focus solely on the common path." Rather than have 2 skill trees that are basically 2 halves of the same gameplay feature, you now have just the one tree. My gripe is not with streamlining. It should be the goal of any designer to remove superfluous stuff from gameplay. But "streamlining" doesn't have to mean removing choice, and shouldn't in an RPG. It can simply mean making sure that any option that exists is a real and tangible option not merely added to pad the roster of skill trees. As such, I believe wholeheartedly in the streamlined approach ME2 offers, but have no desire whatsoever to see my options be so narrow in an RPG. So as I've suggested... keep things streamlined, sure, but add additional and more meaningful options for players. Bring back the choice in character customization.
I think any point allocations system that breaks each skill tier into individually assigned points is a step in the right direction. I am absolutely astonished that the ME2 system for point assignment made it into the game. What's the point of putting in the effort of leveling up from say, level 28 to level 30 if the additional points I'll have received cannot be spent in the end. Such a waste! But we also have an opportunity here to add some real customization to skill trees that goes beyond just small incremental increases. Adding in the option to focus on certain ket attributes of a power, for instance, that appeals to you can literally change the way a player uses that power.
Incinerate is a very good example. If a player could focus on, say, area of effect as the primary attribute of interest for him, his version of Incinerate could become a crowd control weapon, doing smaller amounts of damage to a group of closely situated enemies. If damage was his thing, the could focus a lot of power on a single target and effectively wipe him out in a single throw. And if he focused on duration, perhaps he could hit a target with a slow burn that does damage over time, yes, but also ensures that Krogan won't be regenerating any time soon. Or he could just balance all the attributes and produce a jack-of-all-trades weapon. This allows a great deal of variance to exist within the same power, and adds a high degree of customization to a skill tree that would otherwise be entirely linear and more or less the same for every player.
Valmarn... I can't say I'm particularly saddened by the streamlined approach Mass Effect 2 took with character development IN THEORY. Mass Effect 1 was already light on the RPG elements, but threw those elements at you in such a way as to have you believe there was more depth there than actually existed. Abilities and skills were all jumbled up, and certain attributes of a single gameplay concept were often broken up into multiple "skill" trees. In actuality, the system was fairly shallow, and most people were often funneled toward a common end result. It isn't to say that variance in character customization wasn't possible, just that most people wouldn't be able to find it.
Mass Effect 2 simply removed the illusion of depth. All it did was say "most people are following this fairly linear path in character development, so let's just remove all the tertiary stuff and focus solely on the common path." Rather than have 2 skill trees that are basically 2 halves of the same gameplay feature, you now have just the one tree. My gripe is not with streamlining. It should be the goal of any designer to remove superfluous stuff from gameplay. But "streamlining" doesn't have to mean removing choice, and shouldn't in an RPG. It can simply mean making sure that any option that exists is a real and tangible option not merely added to pad the roster of skill trees. As such, I believe wholeheartedly in the streamlined approach ME2 offers, but have no desire whatsoever to see my options be so narrow in an RPG. So as I've suggested... keep things streamlined, sure, but add additional and more meaningful options for players. Bring back the choice in character customization.
I think any point allocations system that breaks each skill tier into individually assigned points is a step in the right direction. I am absolutely astonished that the ME2 system for point assignment made it into the game. What's the point of putting in the effort of leveling up from say, level 28 to level 30 if the additional points I'll have received cannot be spent in the end. Such a waste! But we also have an opportunity here to add some real customization to skill trees that goes beyond just small incremental increases. Adding in the option to focus on certain ket attributes of a power, for instance, that appeals to you can literally change the way a player uses that power.
Incinerate is a very good example. If a player could focus on, say, area of effect as the primary attribute of interest for him, his version of Incinerate could become a crowd control weapon, doing smaller amounts of damage to a group of closely situated enemies. If damage was his thing, the could focus a lot of power on a single target and effectively wipe him out in a single throw. And if he focused on duration, perhaps he could hit a target with a slow burn that does damage over time, yes, but also ensures that Krogan won't be regenerating any time soon. Or he could just balance all the attributes and produce a jack-of-all-trades weapon. This allows a great deal of variance to exist within the same power, and adds a high degree of customization to a skill tree that would otherwise be entirely linear and more or less the same for every player.
#860
Posté 02 septembre 2010 - 08:02
Spartindude
-
- Members
- 11 messages
THANK YOU.
For once, I've actually found something usefull on this forum... I agree with about everything Scarecrow has said... Although I have not had the chance to read all 35 pages, I shall Bump this here, cause seriously, without us (the users input) BW is just gonna get steam rolled by EA and make a ****ty game like most EA crap out there
For once, I've actually found something usefull on this forum... I agree with about everything Scarecrow has said... Although I have not had the chance to read all 35 pages, I shall Bump this here, cause seriously, without us (the users input) BW is just gonna get steam rolled by EA and make a ****ty game like most EA crap out there
#865
Posté 08 septembre 2010 - 04:20
mdouglas86
-
- Members
- 15 messages
Just so this is clear beforehand, I haven't downloaded Shadow Broker DLC yet as I've been pretty busy. But I did read that they added Stasis as a bonus power, and that this is supposedly the totality of the "fix" to the power system. Does anyone else who has actually played the DLC feel the same way that I do (in theory), that this is somewhat of a cop out buff. It's just one power that's immune to defenses and the enemy is immune to damage. I guess I didn't expect them to change a major game system in DLC, but I really hope they get a little more creative with the 3rd ME. The global cooldown needs to go.
#866
Posté 08 septembre 2010 - 04:33
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
Thanks again JL... you don't have to soldier on yourself, though I definitely appreciate the support. When I get some time, I'm going to petition higher up the chain for a sticky (as was recommended to me by one of our more regular forum mod staffers). At least that way we can get the traffic without the bumps... but I'm somewhat worried all that traffic will cause the topic to devolve into anarchy like so many other threads.
I've just been too busy here to devote the kind of time to the thread I should... BUT, of course, if any of the good folks at BioWare want to use some of these ideas but fear the great legal monster that is intellectual property rights, they can help themselves and free up a lot of my troubles by extending to me a job offer. Now that I'm 100% out of the military, I'm certainly free to pursue such offers... just sayin'.
Spartin... Thank you for the support. There has been a lot of good discussion over the course of the 35 pages in this topic, much of which has lead to revisions, additions, and clarifications to my original posting for the 2.0 update. In the OP for this topic you see some of the best the rest of the topic has to offer, but certainly the OP doesn't include every great ideal and discussion this topic has broached by far. While you may find many of the discussions moot in light of the revised OPs, you may also find the occasional gem amongst gems if you decide to dive in and read.
As far as the perpetual arguement of EA's influence on game development, I'd have to say that to place a blanket statement to the effect that EA's managing priorities somehow negatively effect the quality of the games the company publishes is doing a great disservice to the company. While I do agree that there was a time when EA was ruled by clueless, profit-driven, soulless suits who killed creativity and squashed any innovations aside from minor differentiated cookie-cutter iterations of proven series in a push to maximize the bottom line... I honestly believe that having its corporate butt handed to it a few years back, and the resulting management shake-up has really resulted in a different EA, and THAT EA has shown itself to be nothing short of wonderful for the games industry. Besides, even at its worst, EA could not have compared to the evil that is Activision.
Beyond that, there's the true underlying fact about game developers and their tenuous relationship with fan feedback. The problem is not that they don't listed to what the fans want... oh no. The problem is that the fans that tend to be the most vocal about a game are not the ones that should be speaking for the community of gamers as a whole, and as a result, the opinions game developers hear are, unfortunately, not the ones that would result in a better game. The difficulty lies in just who spends their time here in forums or takes the time to write opinion letters. Rarely are these the contented and rational individuals who are able to offer constructive and unbiased criticism. No... most often these are the polarized, raving loons within a community.
We're talking the fanboy and the hater. Fanboys will praise something no matter what faults it may have - they see no wrong. And haters will crap all over something no matter what good it has - the see no right. Let's face it... forums are jam-packed with fanboys and haters, and their postings drown out any rational conversation to be had. But there's a small number of us, and many of those have gravitated toward this thread, that LOVE Mass Effect... love BioWare... but are not so blinded by their fanaticism that we can't notice the chinks in the armor. We don't want to tear the house down, we just want to fix the foundation, sure up the walls, and throw on a fresh coat of paint. Make it not just new or different, but better.
So you're right... Any game developer needs to listed to the community if they can hope to keep in step with the gamers and deliver a better experience down the line... but that being said, we in the community have an obligation to make sure that the voices those developers hear are the ones with will allow them to deliver that experience.
I've just been too busy here to devote the kind of time to the thread I should... BUT, of course, if any of the good folks at BioWare want to use some of these ideas but fear the great legal monster that is intellectual property rights, they can help themselves and free up a lot of my troubles by extending to me a job offer. Now that I'm 100% out of the military, I'm certainly free to pursue such offers... just sayin'.
Spartin... Thank you for the support. There has been a lot of good discussion over the course of the 35 pages in this topic, much of which has lead to revisions, additions, and clarifications to my original posting for the 2.0 update. In the OP for this topic you see some of the best the rest of the topic has to offer, but certainly the OP doesn't include every great ideal and discussion this topic has broached by far. While you may find many of the discussions moot in light of the revised OPs, you may also find the occasional gem amongst gems if you decide to dive in and read.
As far as the perpetual arguement of EA's influence on game development, I'd have to say that to place a blanket statement to the effect that EA's managing priorities somehow negatively effect the quality of the games the company publishes is doing a great disservice to the company. While I do agree that there was a time when EA was ruled by clueless, profit-driven, soulless suits who killed creativity and squashed any innovations aside from minor differentiated cookie-cutter iterations of proven series in a push to maximize the bottom line... I honestly believe that having its corporate butt handed to it a few years back, and the resulting management shake-up has really resulted in a different EA, and THAT EA has shown itself to be nothing short of wonderful for the games industry. Besides, even at its worst, EA could not have compared to the evil that is Activision.
Beyond that, there's the true underlying fact about game developers and their tenuous relationship with fan feedback. The problem is not that they don't listed to what the fans want... oh no. The problem is that the fans that tend to be the most vocal about a game are not the ones that should be speaking for the community of gamers as a whole, and as a result, the opinions game developers hear are, unfortunately, not the ones that would result in a better game. The difficulty lies in just who spends their time here in forums or takes the time to write opinion letters. Rarely are these the contented and rational individuals who are able to offer constructive and unbiased criticism. No... most often these are the polarized, raving loons within a community.
We're talking the fanboy and the hater. Fanboys will praise something no matter what faults it may have - they see no wrong. And haters will crap all over something no matter what good it has - the see no right. Let's face it... forums are jam-packed with fanboys and haters, and their postings drown out any rational conversation to be had. But there's a small number of us, and many of those have gravitated toward this thread, that LOVE Mass Effect... love BioWare... but are not so blinded by their fanaticism that we can't notice the chinks in the armor. We don't want to tear the house down, we just want to fix the foundation, sure up the walls, and throw on a fresh coat of paint. Make it not just new or different, but better.
So you're right... Any game developer needs to listed to the community if they can hope to keep in step with the gamers and deliver a better experience down the line... but that being said, we in the community have an obligation to make sure that the voices those developers hear are the ones with will allow them to deliver that experience.
#867
Posté 08 septembre 2010 - 04:43
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
In a way, Douglas, DLC is a way for a developer to try out different gameplay features without having to devote an entire retail release to the concept. While I think the Firewalker DLC was essentially horrible on its own, it did offer BioWare a chance to see if they could create a vehicle system that would be more workable than the Mako was. At that, at least, they succeeded (though a LOT more resources and creativity need to be thrown at these levels if they expect them not to suck the next time around).
Ultimately, though, a developer is often commited to the basic design features their game is built around once that game is out. While many can agree that the power system needs fixing, and while I and others have proposed a number of workable fixes, it'd be naive to believe that we'll see such a significant gameplay feature to be radically changed in either a patch or DLC package. It really is just to big a change to happen on the fly. However, with player feedback and DLC acting as a testbed for ideas, it's not inconceivable for BioWare to take the lessons they've learned over the last year and incorporate that in the next game.
Hell, I haven't even had the time to turn on my XBox in weeks, let alone play through new DLC, but I wouldn't expect this round of content to be any more than added levels, some experimentation, and some fan service... which all things considered, is still pretty good. I have every confidence that BioWare will be able to deliver a stellar ending to the Mass Effect trilogy.
Ultimately, though, a developer is often commited to the basic design features their game is built around once that game is out. While many can agree that the power system needs fixing, and while I and others have proposed a number of workable fixes, it'd be naive to believe that we'll see such a significant gameplay feature to be radically changed in either a patch or DLC package. It really is just to big a change to happen on the fly. However, with player feedback and DLC acting as a testbed for ideas, it's not inconceivable for BioWare to take the lessons they've learned over the last year and incorporate that in the next game.
Hell, I haven't even had the time to turn on my XBox in weeks, let alone play through new DLC, but I wouldn't expect this round of content to be any more than added levels, some experimentation, and some fan service... which all things considered, is still pretty good. I have every confidence that BioWare will be able to deliver a stellar ending to the Mass Effect trilogy.
#868
Posté 09 septembre 2010 - 02:42
JLBoyyy
-
- Members
- 328 messages
Actually, I enjoy bumping the thread for some odd reason...
#869
Posté 10 septembre 2010 - 01:07
Gene_Learmonth
-
- Members
- 1 messages
Wow, I can’t believe I just finished reading those 35 pages of fantastic ideas that everyone has come up with. The only problem is I can’t think of any ideas to add to it (at least not right now).
Scarecrow I would like to thank you for this tread that you’ve made, a lot more interesting than many of the treads on this site.
And first post! But more importantly BUMP!
Scarecrow I would like to thank you for this tread that you’ve made, a lot more interesting than many of the treads on this site.
And first post! But more importantly BUMP!
#870
Posté 10 septembre 2010 - 11:57
szomszedsrac
-
- Members
- 19 messages
I've been very busy lately. Fortunately, I made it into college so the rush is over for now, maybe I'll have some time to think about adding some ideas. Finished Fallout 3 not too long ago, got some great outlook from a very different type of RPG.
But this time I think I just BUMP into your thread before I fall asleep..
But this time I think I just BUMP into your thread before I fall asleep..
Modifié par szomszedsrac, 11 septembre 2010 - 04:37 .
#871
Posté 11 septembre 2010 - 11:23
JLBoyyy
-
- Members
- 328 messages
Have a nice September 11, 2010 (It's about 4:30 P.M where I live... Pacific Time to be exact) and remember what happened I guess...
It's just a bump, don't freak out...
It's just a bump, don't freak out...
#872
Posté 13 septembre 2010 - 01:21
JLBoyyy
-
- Members
- 328 messages
I haven't read all of the thread actually, but has the gameplay engine tweaks ever been discussed?
#873
Posté 13 septembre 2010 - 03:23
OneDrunkMonk
-
- Members
- 605 messages
Way back when information about Mass Effect 2 was initially being released I was under the impression that having an eclectic squad of bad-ass individuals meant that you would have the challenge of dealing with possible conflicting personalities. I don't just mean breaking up fights a la Jack and Miranda's encounter but that everyone has their own knowledge and experience and would want to tackle situations their own way. "Loyalty Missions," as it happened, pretty much gets everyone to accept Shepard as the boss unquestionably, they don't even chime in a significant opinions except on their own loyalty mission.
As it's become obvious by now that it's not a one man/woman show saving the universe perhaps in ME3 squad members can be better utilized by their skills, knowledge and opinions. Get some dialog choices where you can, for example, [take Samara's advice] or [take Garrus's advice] or [ignore both]. Let each choice then change the encounter. This would add even more replay value as players will want to try out different scenarios.
Even better yet allow for randomness by who you take on a mission. Imagine in ME2 you are on a mission on the Citadel when suddenly Jack recognizes an old Cerberus guard and takes off after him. Now you got two situations to deal with.
As it's become obvious by now that it's not a one man/woman show saving the universe perhaps in ME3 squad members can be better utilized by their skills, knowledge and opinions. Get some dialog choices where you can, for example, [take Samara's advice] or [take Garrus's advice] or [ignore both]. Let each choice then change the encounter. This would add even more replay value as players will want to try out different scenarios.
Even better yet allow for randomness by who you take on a mission. Imagine in ME2 you are on a mission on the Citadel when suddenly Jack recognizes an old Cerberus guard and takes off after him. Now you got two situations to deal with.
#874
Posté 13 septembre 2010 - 04:24
Scarecrow_ES
-
- Members
- 436 messages
szomszedsrac... welcome back to the thread! Fallout 3 is perhaps one of my favorite RPGs, and is in one of my, if not my absolute, favorite RPG setups - which is to say I absolutely love free-form, open-world RPGs. Fallout 3 was not always perfect, but I think for what it was it had gotten quite close, and I greatly look forward to the promise of New Vegas.
JL, in terms of engine tweaks, I think you might have to be more specific.
Monk... with regard to squadmates, I think we have to look at the scope of the game and it's ambitions compared to development time, gameplay concepts, and focus that BioWare could work with. Certainly having a true impact on your squadmates, and thus your squadmates' impact on the game world based on both your and other squadmates' standings in it, is not beyond the realm of ability for BioWare. Let's face it, I think we can see in games like DA:O that more in-depth development is possible, and even going back to KotOR 2 (though technically Obsidian developed) we can find instances where players and squadmates can react to each other more definitely, and the player can even truly shape the squadmate as a character. In KotOR 2, if players gained the respect/trust/admiration of their squadmates to a certain degree, they could then be trained as Jedi. Gaining that repoir took great effort and a detailed understanding of each character's personality and required influencing events and choosing dialog in a way that meshed with the various squadmates involved.
Realistically, although Mass Effect 2's system was extremely well-developed and presented, the actual interactions are quite shallow. Rarely do you have to mind your decisions and thus make choices that are in keeping with a particular squadmate's sensibilities in order to have an effect on them. A possible exception is in love interests (particularly Miranda). In the end, gaining a character's unwavering trust is merely as simple as completing a specific mission with that character. Of course, the way that relationship is presented perhaps gives us a greater degree of connection than the poor means of achieving that connection would indicate. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, when you look a little closer, the system really is quite hollow, as flashy as it is.
Of course, since the knowledge or ability to create this depth isn't the issue, we have to look at issues like scope, time, focus, etc. I think looking at the general production values present in ME2, we could probably assume much of the development effort was placed in producing a much more focused narrative, and then expanding on the narrative only slightly in an effort to keep the player engaged as much as possible in the "task at hand." Only rarely does the narrative stray off the story path, and never significantly... in fact, not even to the extent that ME1 did. It's possible, then, that the shallow nature of character-building missions was intentional - or in the opposite extreme a more broad narrative was simply not possible given the scope or focus of the game. However, I would hope that ME3 would go back to a more RPG-centric narrative system, and that we'd see a return to greater depth (I'd think that BioWare would now be capable of delivering both depth AND high production value at this point).
JL, in terms of engine tweaks, I think you might have to be more specific.
Monk... with regard to squadmates, I think we have to look at the scope of the game and it's ambitions compared to development time, gameplay concepts, and focus that BioWare could work with. Certainly having a true impact on your squadmates, and thus your squadmates' impact on the game world based on both your and other squadmates' standings in it, is not beyond the realm of ability for BioWare. Let's face it, I think we can see in games like DA:O that more in-depth development is possible, and even going back to KotOR 2 (though technically Obsidian developed) we can find instances where players and squadmates can react to each other more definitely, and the player can even truly shape the squadmate as a character. In KotOR 2, if players gained the respect/trust/admiration of their squadmates to a certain degree, they could then be trained as Jedi. Gaining that repoir took great effort and a detailed understanding of each character's personality and required influencing events and choosing dialog in a way that meshed with the various squadmates involved.
Realistically, although Mass Effect 2's system was extremely well-developed and presented, the actual interactions are quite shallow. Rarely do you have to mind your decisions and thus make choices that are in keeping with a particular squadmate's sensibilities in order to have an effect on them. A possible exception is in love interests (particularly Miranda). In the end, gaining a character's unwavering trust is merely as simple as completing a specific mission with that character. Of course, the way that relationship is presented perhaps gives us a greater degree of connection than the poor means of achieving that connection would indicate. Unfortunately, as you've pointed out, when you look a little closer, the system really is quite hollow, as flashy as it is.
Of course, since the knowledge or ability to create this depth isn't the issue, we have to look at issues like scope, time, focus, etc. I think looking at the general production values present in ME2, we could probably assume much of the development effort was placed in producing a much more focused narrative, and then expanding on the narrative only slightly in an effort to keep the player engaged as much as possible in the "task at hand." Only rarely does the narrative stray off the story path, and never significantly... in fact, not even to the extent that ME1 did. It's possible, then, that the shallow nature of character-building missions was intentional - or in the opposite extreme a more broad narrative was simply not possible given the scope or focus of the game. However, I would hope that ME3 would go back to a more RPG-centric narrative system, and that we'd see a return to greater depth (I'd think that BioWare would now be capable of delivering both depth AND high production value at this point).
#875
Posté 13 septembre 2010 - 02:11
NM7
-
- Members
- 648 messages
There are some good suggestions in your origianl post, Scarecrow. Though I must admit I didn't read everything writen on each gameplay mechanic, there are a couple of sections where I don't agree with your suggestions, those being Research and power cool down and usage. But you have insipred me to post my own ideas regarding those particular areas.
Research & Upgrades
An upgrade system that utilised research trees, where the player is free to choose which paths they would like to invest ‘Research Points’, would allow the player to develop their character and squad members as they see fit, in whatever order they want, without the draw back of potentially missing upgrades, of having to wait until certain missions/areas are available, as it is with ME2.
Research projects would be split in to different trees for each available category. For example there would be a different tree for each type of weapon. Biotics, Tech Skills, Damage Protection, etc would also have their own categories.
Each level within the tree would require an increasing number of Research Points, preventing the player from reaching the more powerful levels of a particular research line until later in the game.
Research trees that have no benefit to the player’s particular class, for example Tech upgrades when using a biotic class, would be available at a reduced cost to encourage the player to upgrade squad members abilities and powers and not just concentrate on upgrading areas that boost their own skills and weapons.
Research Points could be awarded through the killing of enemies, like a traditional XP system, but separate from the XP that goes toward levelling up the player’s character, or as a rewarded upon the completion of missions.
Power Usage
ME2 utilises a global cool down system where by the use of one power disables all other powers for a certain duration, determined by the last skill used. This leads to a system were powers cannot be used in quick succession like in ME1, but can be used more frequently.
A system that splits powers in to different categories, depending on their functionality, for example: Attack, Defence and Indirect, would allow the player to use up to 3 skills in quick succession, one from each category. Each category would have it’s own global cool down which only affects skills of that type.
Using the adept as an example, biotic powers could be split as follows:
Attack
- Warp
- Throw
- Shockwave
- Reave
- Slam
Indirect
- Singularity
- Pull
- Dominate
Defence
- Barrier
- Stasis
A system like this allows the player to use a defensive skill while at the same time allowing them to use their attack powers. A minor increase to individual skill cool down times would prevent the over use and spamming of skills.
What i've said may have been posted previously in the thread and if so I apologise, but it would take too long to read through 35 pages of posts.
Research & Upgrades
An upgrade system that utilised research trees, where the player is free to choose which paths they would like to invest ‘Research Points’, would allow the player to develop their character and squad members as they see fit, in whatever order they want, without the draw back of potentially missing upgrades, of having to wait until certain missions/areas are available, as it is with ME2.
Research projects would be split in to different trees for each available category. For example there would be a different tree for each type of weapon. Biotics, Tech Skills, Damage Protection, etc would also have their own categories.
Each level within the tree would require an increasing number of Research Points, preventing the player from reaching the more powerful levels of a particular research line until later in the game.
Research trees that have no benefit to the player’s particular class, for example Tech upgrades when using a biotic class, would be available at a reduced cost to encourage the player to upgrade squad members abilities and powers and not just concentrate on upgrading areas that boost their own skills and weapons.
Research Points could be awarded through the killing of enemies, like a traditional XP system, but separate from the XP that goes toward levelling up the player’s character, or as a rewarded upon the completion of missions.
Power Usage
ME2 utilises a global cool down system where by the use of one power disables all other powers for a certain duration, determined by the last skill used. This leads to a system were powers cannot be used in quick succession like in ME1, but can be used more frequently.
A system that splits powers in to different categories, depending on their functionality, for example: Attack, Defence and Indirect, would allow the player to use up to 3 skills in quick succession, one from each category. Each category would have it’s own global cool down which only affects skills of that type.
Using the adept as an example, biotic powers could be split as follows:
Attack
- Warp
- Throw
- Shockwave
- Reave
- Slam
Indirect
- Singularity
- Pull
- Dominate
Defence
- Barrier
- Stasis
A system like this allows the player to use a defensive skill while at the same time allowing them to use their attack powers. A minor increase to individual skill cool down times would prevent the over use and spamming of skills.
What i've said may have been posted previously in the thread and if so I apologise, but it would take too long to read through 35 pages of posts.
Modifié par Akari Tenshi, 13 septembre 2010 - 02:12 .
