59 réponses à ce sujet

[PoppaDiddyPuff]

I have now played through the game multiple times(Veteran through Insane), and on the most recent playthrough I intentionally did not upgrade my ship or go on loyalty quests.  After going on the suicide mission with nothing it made me think "What if the Loyalty missions had been much easier to fail?"  I think the first playthrough would be much more interesting in Mass Effect 3 if they make the loyalty quests harder, and maybe even make decisions like upgrading your ship more difficult (if it was reeaaally expensive for example).  Going into the final mission on the first playthrough more unprepared than you like, but without a choice (because of mistakes you made), in my opinion would make the story even More interesting.  That's my only complaint, I loved the game, but that one little tweak could make ME3 the best game of all time easily.  Thoughts?

[RighteousRage]

Unless the enemies move like 3 times faster and 3 times smarter, any changes to the "difficulty" would probably be insignificant as people would just mine the game longer for resources or spend more time in the tactical menu and so forth, like older, harder Bioware games.



Insanity is "pretty hard" for me, or at least was before Illium, but certainly not the hardest game I've ever played. ME 2 is way way more difficult than the first one though, as far as I can tell.

[jowsephmaxweel]

Personally i think they need to expand a couple of things for a game being about building a team and all you really cant do much for your team mabye allow you to customize thier suits in the same manner you can shepardes and add more guns to choose from for your allies if its about a team then let me build one.

[javierabegazo]

Try an insanity run without buying ANY upgrades whatsoever and tell me if you think that's easy.

[AlexXIV]

Well don't know, are you using cheats? Don't get me wrong but I played it on hard but gave up at insanity because too often my groupmembers screw up at some point. And I couldn't be bothered to start over for they chance that they don't do it next time. Honestly whoever beats this game on insane is a cheater or a ****ing genious for me. So no, not too easy for me. Too short maybe.

[PoppaDiddyPuff]

I don't mean the difficulty in the gameplay itself, because insanity is effing crazy hard. I mean that the loyalty missions should be harder to figure out, that decisions to keep your teammates loyal shouldn't be easy to solve, and things that must be purchased to keep everyone alive shouldn't be so easy to get.

[AK118]

yeah, i agree. if there was an actual chance for failure, it would be pretty cool, instead of just playing it through. like in deus ex, maybe if you failed one mission, the story would go down a different path or there was a different way of gaining loyalty. it almost seems like advertising all the choices i can make is false, and "who do you want on your team" isn't really a decision i can make. for me, every playthrough was basically the same, and it has less replayability than ME1. again, i think Bioware should try for something like what deus ex did. each playthrough wasn't really drastically different, but it was surprising what you could get away with story-wise.



and it's not the difficulties that need to change, just the story. if we could change the way the story and loyalty missions work, doing something different for each difficulty would be easy. we need more choice, not just in who you are, but who you side with and where the story goes. i admit it would be difficult in a game that is supposed to have a sequel, to make all those choices count, but hopefully in ME3 we can see something that really lets the gamer choose where you want to go, not just in the world, or in your character, but in the story. and it shouldn't be easy to make those choices, and it could even force the player to make a sacrifice here and there, but i hope fans can get over that to make a much better gaming experience, and to revolutionize choice in games.

Modifié par AK118, 13 février 2010 - 10:59 .

[MonkeyLungs]

PoppaDiddyPuff wrote...

I don't mean the difficulty in the gameplay itself, because insanity is effing crazy hard. I mean that the loyalty missions should be harder to figure out, that decisions to keep your teammates loyal shouldn't be easy to solve, and things that must be purchased to keep everyone alive shouldn't be so easy to get.

I'm not Commander Shepard but this is my favorite statement in this thread.

Except the upgrade part I'm not so sure of ... maybe if that had a quests system too, then cool. But if it just means more resources, then not cool.

[bjdbwea]

That wouldn't go well with the new target audience of casual gamers. Depth and thinking are out in video games.

[PoppaDiddyPuff]

But good scripts and acting are in and I can guarantee the writers don't think the best ending is the one where everyone lives.

[LuPoM]

I don't agree.. on my first playthrough one of the team (loyal) died, on the second playthrough 3 died, replaying the save of the first playthrough (before omega-4 relay) and making different choices = noone died.. considering that they were ALL Loyal.. and with ALL the upgrades (weapons/powers/normandy)
Figures when they're *just* recruited

Modifié par LuPoM, 13 février 2010 - 11:11 .

[PoppaDiddyPuff]

Really? I must have prepared too much my first time through. I felt it neccesary to get to know all the characters.

[Foxtrot 813]

It was too easy to get upgrades to your ship and equipment. Resources are everywhere, and upgrades don't cost that much. You can die only if you want to(don't want to get upgrades or intentionally get out of cover).

[Veex]

bjdbwea wrote...

That wouldn't go well with the new target audience of casual gamers. Depth and thinking are out in video games.

Because picking that armor with +5 health over that armor with +4 health is incredibly hard. Clutter might be out of video games, thinking was never a prerequisite.

[Faust1979]

Foxtrot 813 wrote...

It was too easy to get upgrades to your ship and equipment. Resources are everywhere, and upgrades don't cost that much. You can die only if you want to(don't want to get upgrades or intentionally get out of cover).

I've died several times in the game and I wasn't even trying to die and I'm glad that the game isn't over all frustating and near impossible. I'd get mad and feel like I wasted 60 bucks on a game I can't finish

[skan5]

Veex wrote...

Because picking that armor with +5 health over that armor with +4 health is incredibly hard. Clutter might be out of video games, thinking was never a prerequisite.

How about +5hp/+18 shields or +15hp/+5 shields? Maybe as a Soldier with Hardened AR you may want more HP since that's where that awesome damage mitigation comes from. Or maybe you love those powers that boost shield strength based on a % and really want as much shields as you want for greater bang for the buck. 

But nah, let's make everything as simple as possible.

As far as the OP is concerned, I would have loved if gaining their loyalty wasn't as obvious as it was or if upgrading wasn't as easy. I think the only real way of not getting them is if you actively chose not to or if you just didn't want to bother at all (nothing wrong with that, mind you).

Here's hoping for future iterations 

[Soruyao]

skan5 wrote...
How about +5hp/+18 shields or +15hp/+5 shields? Maybe as a Soldier with Hardened AR you may want more HP since that's where that awesome damage mitigation comes from. Or maybe you love those powers that boost shield strength based on a % and really want as much shields as you want for greater bang for the buck. 

But nah, let's make everything as simple as possible.

As far as the OP is concerned, I would have loved if gaining their loyalty wasn't as obvious as it was or if upgrading wasn't as easy. I think the only real way of not getting them is if you actively chose not to or if you just didn't want to bother at all (nothing wrong with that, mind you).

Here's hoping for future iterations 

Your decision in that situation makes little to no difference.  There's no gameplay difference in the first game between mitigating damage through shields or through armor/health.  You put all your talents in "make me not die" and in "make me shoot better" as a soldier and that's about it.  Everything else was just the game tricking you into thinking you were doing anything else.  (All your activated abilities were "make me not die" except marksman/carnage/etc.)

Yeah, this game is really so much simpler.

Even if you were right and what talents you picked affected how you weighted the importance of armor and shields, you'd end up with situations where you end up with a difference between a 15 armor piece and a 7 shield piece and you have to go through a spreadsheet to figure out if the high number of the armor piece is enough to make up for the fact that shields are slightly better.   If you had a situation like that, it would be more complex, but it would be complex in a way that has nothing to do with actually playing the role of a soldier saving the galaxy.  It'd just be a cluttered throwback to pen and paper games where they didn't have any other gameplay mechanics to decide the course of combat through.

I mean, imagine a soldier going through an area and picking up a bloody helmet from someone they just killed and going "Hold on guys, the label says this helmet has +5 armor.   Is that better than what I'm wearing?  Hold on, let me get my calculator."

[lukandroll]

javierabegazo wrote...

Try an insanity run without buying ANY upgrades whatsoever and tell me if you think that's easy.

Try fighting with a wooden stick on any RPG on the hardest difficulty.... and tell me if you think that's easy

[Benny922]

Try beating this game on the PS3. Now that's difficult.

[Veex]

skan5 wrote...

How about +5hp/+18 shields or +15hp/+5 shields? Maybe as a Soldier with Hardened AR you may want more HP since that's where that awesome damage mitigation comes from. Or maybe you love those powers that boost shield strength based on a % and really want as much shields as you want for greater bang for the buck. 

But nah, let's make everything as simple as possible.

Again, neither of these is complicated or hard. I'm not arguing against choice, I'm arguing against the premise that somehow more options means a more mentally complex game. It doesn't, especially when +5hp/+18 shields and +15hp/+5 shields makes no tangible difference in gameplay, as is the case with Mass Effect.

Mass Effect was already a simple game. They did remove many options of choice in the sequel, but you don't have to be intelligent to play either game.

[skan5]

@Soruyao (don't want to chain quote )

Your argument on needing an spreadsheet: In any game I've ever played with a visible stat system, there have always been those that make their decisions by simply looking at the numbers and deciding on the fly which is better for them, and there have always been those that have resorted to calculating everything to min/max and create the best possible outcome. I've seen people do this in games like FF7 where the stats were for the most part static. Some people enjoy number crunching to that level, I'd wager many more do not. Does that mean that they would not enjoy making the decision?

At the specific numbers: It was just something off the top of my head. The point wasn't the actual numbers. He used an example showing a very straightforward progression. My point was trying to say that you can have more than one stat on a piece with varying levels of progression, and deciding which suits your play style more. I hope that makes sense.

At your last paragraph: You wouldn't do that anyway, irregardless of it having no stats or not. Would you pick up something from someone you just killed and wear it willy-nilly? I think looting is a different subject all together in RPGs =D

And lastly, at your first point of it being an illusion: Yes, an illusion. Illusion of choice is better than having none. I learned that very quickly in my first sociology class.


EDIT: @Veex. Yes, sorry if it came out as offensive. It wouldn't make it hard or complex, it would just give choice. I didn't mean to use "simple" as a way to insult intelligence, I meant it as more streamlined. I understand if it comes off as that.

Modifié par skan5, 14 février 2010 - 12:52 .

[StreetlightEagle]

I definitely agree with this. Though I did only play on normal, I really didn't find the suicide mission very suicidal. There should have been some unavoidable decisions such as the Kaiden/Ashley one in ME1 to make sure that you lose some crew.

[Black Metal Wolf]

The beginning of an insanity run is damn hard.

[gr00grams]

Because picking that armor with +5 health over that armor with +4 health is incredibly hard. Clutter might be out of video games, thinking was never a prerequisite.

Play a game where this would actually apply first.
BioWare games are not the micro-management games.

Take something like (older games off top o' head) Dungeon Siege 2, Sacred 1/2, Titan Quest, etc style games and things are incredibly more complex and convoluted than you give credit with the +5 vs +4 stuff.

Like manage a team of 6 (dungeon siege 2), where each character had their own full complete inventories with 10 item slots, spell books containing 6 castable spells, 4 auto cast, and 4 reserve, with 6 different magic types and over 40 spells in each magic 'field'. Like which buffs/debuffs etc to use for the full team, roughly 6 completely seperate trees available to all, and mixing and matching skills from all aspects, and on and on, with crafting, reagents, at least 10 different stats per item, etc etc etc etc etc.

I agree yes, that it doesn't really suit the BioWare games, but please, the above stuff is what most refer to when talking like that, and it is by no means simple or as ridiculously stupid as you make it sound.

Modifié par gr00grams, 14 février 2010 - 01:20 .

[Veex]

skan5 wrote...

EDIT: @Veex. Yes, sorry if it came out as offensive. It wouldn't make it hard or complex, it would just give choice. I didn't mean to use "simple" as a way to insult intelligence, I meant it as more streamlined. I understand if it comes off as that.

I appreciate the apology and the apparent sincerity behind it. As I've said many times on this forum I think Mass Effect 2 has gone too far in terms of reducing the available options for armor and weapon customization. I really enjoyed the weapon updgrade system for example, and having a few more piece meal items for armor and a wider weapon selection would be nice. That said, I also think that the inventory in Mass Effect was quite bloated and tedious to manage.

I just think it is unfortunate that many people do consider anyone who prefers a more streamlined inventory to quite literally be a "stupid fps gamer" when it simply isn't the case.