297 réponses à ce sujet

[A Fhaol Bhig]

TJSolo wrote...

"I can not believe your arguing so passionatly about loot..."
Loot is fun swag. Hence the popularity of all the DLC loot that was offered to pre-orders.

Yes thats loot, I didn't say loot sucked, I said it was rather stupid that the only point he continually argues about is loot.

[TJSolo]

It isn't stupid if that is the area he/she wants to focus on.

It is just how that person chooses to approach the matter.

I haven't read all of that persons posts to know whether or not that is their only point, even though having one point or fifty isn't better or worse.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

TJSolo wrote...

It isn't stupid if that is the area he/she wants to focus on.
It is just how that person chooses to approach the matter.
I haven't read all of that persons posts to know whether or not that is their only point, even though having one point or fifty isn't better or worse.

I suppose your right, bad choice of words.

It guess I mean its annoying me because he's more of a flamer, in a thread that is mostly calm. I can get over that I suppose, but if you read his other posts (I think their are 3 all together) he just trash talks about how horrible it is, and how he misses the loot.

I don't care that he hates the game, or misses the loot, I just want him to be more constructive.

[lukandroll]

newcomplex wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...



One cannot argue that the dumbed down systems are more "immersive", just as much as waist high boxes lined up in neat rows are. Party members have NO armor, NONE. Don't fark up my RPG just because you're too lazy to play one, go play Modern Warfare 2 if all you care about are weapon choice and abilities.

Please, tell me what was the distinction between party armor in the first game?



Heavy Titan Armor-

Damage Protection 66

Sheilds 300

Tech/Biotic Protection 18



Heavy Collosus armor-

Damage protection 66

Sheilds 450

Tech Biotic Protection 18





LUL DID IS SO HARD AND STRATEGIC WICH DO I PIK LUL

So you point is ME1 had redundant gear......... no **** Sherlock

Nobody say that we want all the redundant gear back....

The point is in the armor customization, why we can research mods that work like the armor mods in ME1?

Some exoskeleton, some medical regenerative mods, some damage reduction specifics, some biotic protection mods...

It doesn't make sense, Shepard have less gadgets than what he have in the first game.

MAYBE HE LIKES RETRO STUFF LUL



Seriously all we want, its more options than we have in ME2, which is really short in this regard.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Actually it does make sense that their is less, its called "gameplay changes"

changes are made to the game to suit it in sequels and such. Was it any more realistic to have 150 pieces of gear all at once in ME?



I agree, I've said before I don't like just armor pieces, and that I'd like maybe eight different looking pieces of (standerd armor, not DLC armor) that are strong in some areas like shields, and than I can add components like in ME2 to change it to have more ammo, or better armor.

[Chuck_Vu]

I miss the loot, the invintory system (IMHO) could be fixed simply by stacking similar items. Also, it never made sense to me on why Shepard (Okay Garrus & Grunt too) was the only one who wore armor. Even in hostile atmosphere or the vacuum of space (Jack). If Miranda is wearing some advanced skintight enviro-suit that's just as effective as Shepard's armor, shouldn't Shepard demand somthing similar? Armor is bulky and cumbersome. There is no In-Game logic here.

I also don't understand why I am limited to only two squadmates during missions. There is no In-Game explanation for this either. I understand the gameplay reason(s) just fine. But In-Game, it makes no tactical sense what-so-ever. The Suicide Mission is the only time it made sense to me, because it was addressed in game there.

Both games seem to operate as a Corridor shooter, you have ONE set path to take. Rooftops, windows, air ducts (which Thane lost the ability to use as soon as he joined you), that hidden goat path not accessable to you. Infiltrators be aware, you are taking the same path through the front door like the soldiers. Rainbow Six Vegas 1 & 2 had more options then ME 1&2 and that was a straight shooter.

These are things that are present in your classic RPG's and a few CRPG (C stands for Console/Computer).

Modifié par Chuck_Vu, 02 mars 2010 - 12:05 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Not everything has to have an explanation. Armor, sure it doesn't make sense, but I don't think about it because it doesn't impact my teamates performance.



Gameplay reasons is why you can't have more than one teamate. If you had more, it'd unbalance the game.



Mass effect is not Halo, so no its not going to have super massive in scale battles.



All of those come down to you reading to much into the game, or just gameplay reasons.

[TJSolo]

"Mass effect is not Halo, so no its not going to have super massive in scale battles."



I don't know about you, but I am thinking BIG battle for ME3. Not sure why.

Maybe it has something to do with hundreds of colossal Reapers.



"All of those come down to you reading to much into the game, or just gameplay reasons."

Maybe the teammate number but the others are valid points raised in other improvement threads.

[TornadoADV]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

It isn't stupid if that is the area he/she wants to focus on.
It is just how that person chooses to approach the matter.
I haven't read all of that persons posts to know whether or not that is their only point, even though having one point or fifty isn't better or worse.

I suppose your right, bad choice of words.

It guess I mean its annoying me because he's more of a flamer, in a thread that is mostly calm. I can get over that I suppose, but if you read his other posts (I think their are 3 all together) he just trash talks about how horrible it is, and how he misses the loot.

I don't care that he hates the game, or misses the loot, I just want him to be more constructive.

It's hard to be constructive when the last couple hundred posts I've made have been spammed and flamed by people who's thought that all you need to be an RPG is a Cohesive Story, which I'm sorry to say, is not the case. I hate the lack of inventory, even MW2 had the ability to change your weapons as needed off your dead enemies and that's as brain dead as you can get.

[Qwepir]

TornadoADV wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

It isn't stupid if that is the area he/she wants to focus on.
It is just how that person chooses to approach the matter.
I haven't read all of that persons posts to know whether or not that is their only point, even though having one point or fifty isn't better or worse.

I suppose your right, bad choice of words.

It guess I mean its annoying me because he's more of a flamer, in a thread that is mostly calm. I can get over that I suppose, but if you read his other posts (I think their are 3 all together) he just trash talks about how horrible it is, and how he misses the loot.

I don't care that he hates the game, or misses the loot, I just want him to be more constructive.

It's hard to be constructive when the last couple hundred posts I've made have been spammed and flamed by people who's thought that all you need to be an RPG is a Cohesive Story, which I'm sorry to say, is not the case. I hate the lack of inventory, even MW2 had the ability to change your weapons as needed off your dead enemies and that's as brain dead as you can get.

About your point in MW2, I've never played that, but isn't each gun different in some category, with no(t many?) weapons being direct upgrades? In ME1, once you got Spectre weapons, everything else could go straight to omni-gel. With the exception of Rosenkov tier X weapons.

[TJSolo]

Qwepir wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

It isn't stupid if that is the area he/she wants to focus on.
It is just how that person chooses to approach the matter.
I haven't read all of that persons posts to know whether or not that is their only point, even though having one point or fifty isn't better or worse.

I suppose your right, bad choice of words.

It guess I mean its annoying me because he's more of a flamer, in a thread that is mostly calm. I can get over that I suppose, but if you read his other posts (I think their are 3 all together) he just trash talks about how horrible it is, and how he misses the loot.

I don't care that he hates the game, or misses the loot, I just want him to be more constructive.

It's hard to be constructive when the last couple hundred posts I've made have been spammed and flamed by people who's thought that all you need to be an RPG is a Cohesive Story, which I'm sorry to say, is not the case. I hate the lack of inventory, even MW2 had the ability to change your weapons as needed off your dead enemies and that's as brain dead as you can get.

About your point in MW2, I've never played that, but isn't each gun different in some category, with no(t many?) weapons being direct upgrades? In ME1, once you got Spectre weapons, everything else could go straight to omni-gel. With the exception of Rosenkov tier X weapons.

What is your point, once certain classes get their unique weapons in ME2 the other selections just stop getting used.
Getting the best in class gear/weapons typically nullifies what came before, that is how progression works.

Also spectre weapons are not cheap on a new play through. You would have to sell everything you have and done plenty of quests to afford one. As you leveled up and got higher level loot that sold for more, then it got easier to fully outfit your squad with spectre class weapons.

Modifié par TJSolo, 02 mars 2010 - 12:52 .

[addiction21]

TJSolo wrote...


What is your point, once certain classes get their unique weapons in ME2 the other selections just stop getting used.
Getting the best in class gear/weapons typically nullifies what came before, that is how progression works.

Not for everybody. I prefer the Vindicator over the LMG and the eviscrator over the claymore. A steady progression of "this does more damage then that" is not always the best system.
I can deal with the loss of the inventory but would of liked if the mod system was kept so one could further personalize the guns to their likes.

[Chuck_Vu]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Not everything has to have an explanation. Armor, sure it doesn't make sense, but I don't think about it because it doesn't impact my teamates performance.

Gameplay reasons is why you can't have more than one teamate. If you had more, it'd unbalance the game.

Mass effect is not Halo, so no its not going to have super massive in scale battles.

All of those come down to you reading to much into the game, or just gameplay reasons.

Nope, it's one of things that came to me while playing ME 1 and 2 and several other CRPGs.  Mostly the questions, then me thinking about them further.  Kinda like why didn't the Death Star just blow up Yavin then blow up the Moon of Yavin, instead of flying around the planet (I understand cinematic drama, but - In-Universe- it just doesn't make sense to me).

And having more then two squadmates don't unbalance the game, IF it's was designed that way from the get go.  See Baldur's Gate (you and FIVE companions) and Ultima VI (you and EIGHT others, and boy do you need them - stupid dragons).  There was some CRPG that addressed this once (FFVII, I think), you and your party were on the run, and it was easier to hide in small groups then one large one (it's been a while, I'm probably wrong on this).

I wasn't asking for super massive battles, just a choice between the front door, roof, windows or air ducts.  Hell, even the ability to send my two squadies through one door, me go storming through the other.

To me, any RPG, pretty much represents OPTIONS and EXPLORATION.  All I really want from ME 3 is more options on different aspects of the game.  From equipment, to how I complete mission/quests (guns blazing, stealth, or dialoge/non-violent resolutions).  While I don't miss the Mako per say, I do miss exploring planets.  I'm not a fan of scanning (I'd rather have the long elevator rides back).  So if a planet is not a gas planet or something similar, I should be able to land on it and explore it - even if there's nothing on it.

Shooters, to me (which I also like), is just a choice of guns and armor (if it has it) and clearly defined paths and cut scenes.  There are few (if any) other choices to be made.  And you can forget about exploring.

[TJSolo]

A progressive system of scaling items, gives a measurable increase in performance.

ME2 does have progression it just happens is its more heavily regimented within the progression of the story; that use upgrades instead of better weapons that you have to find in the story and the limited funds you can only acquire from doing the story then purchase more upgrades.



For pure shooters and linear games story based progression works well.

But for a RPG blend; I still prefer my progression to be less railed.

[addiction21]

TJSolo wrote...

A progressive system of scaling items, gives a measurable increase in performance.
ME2 does have progression it just happens is its more heavily regimented within the progression of the story; that use upgrades instead of better weapons that you have to find in the story and the limited funds you can only acquire from doing the story then purchase more upgrades.

For pure shooters and linear games story based progression works well.
But for a RPG blend; I still prefer my progression to be less railed.

Its true and to each their own.

This is how I look at this particular part. ME1's progression was solely level based. The higher the level the better the weapons you could find. Aside form the couple of spectre items you could buy but they were what? 300k I think and you were not making that kind of cash easily at the lower levels.
In ME2 you have to explore some to find the upgrades and do all the central missions to acquire those upgrades.

I dunno I like the unique feel of each weapon but would of preferred that the mod system was kept. The mods from the first game did not bring that feel of difference that there is between, lets say the shirukan machine pistol and the tempest.

To me (and it seems others) the whole "this does more damage then that" is not really variety it is just a treadmill. Move on to the next best weapon that opperates exactly the same as the one you just sold or threw away.

[TJSolo]

I would rather there be variety and a chance of getting a better performing weapon then lack of choice and a high chance that a weapon you get won't be better than the one you currently have.



There is less variety now but that treadmill is still in place.

[SinerAthin]

Having played through ME:2, I'd say yes; the RPG element is a little bit lacking.



Though regardless, it's been the most epic RPG game I've ever played, and even though it's very little RPG, every single bit of that which is available is just pure awesome.

[addiction21]

TJSolo wrote...

I would rather there be variety and a chance of getting a better performing weapon then lack of choice and a high chance that a weapon you get won't be better than the one you currently have.

There is less variety now but that treadmill is still in place.

That is the difference. I do not see bigger numbers as variety. It is still a simple linear progression of gun B has larger numbers then gun A so you use gun B and trash gun A. The choice has become more dynamic. It is no longer "that one has bigger numbers so I will use that one" but you now need to weigh in the rate of fire, damage, clip size, amount of ammunition it comes with, etc etc etc.
As for the treadmill it has not changed. I can not think of a RPG that did not have enemies that got tougher as you moved thru the game so you get weapons that scale. ME1 it was the "bigger number" weapons that scaled up with your level and in ME2 it is the upgrades that you find as you move thru the game.

[TJSolo]

There was near constant escalation is weapon choice until you got what you felt was the best.

It just happens in ME2 the best happens a lot sooner than ME1, in some cases some of the guns on Freedom's Progress will be the ones used on the Suicide mission.



RoF, clip size, ammo...etc are factors not even in the mechanics of ME1 to begin with.



The progression of weapon power has been taken out of weapon progression and placed within the upgrade system. The universal upgrades do not provide variety only progression.

[addiction21]

There was no feelings about it. It was the best or it was not. That is what the numbers are for.



And the guns in ME1 were exactly the same. There was no difference at all between the stock weapons. Replace spectre X with upgrade 5/5 and your at the same exact point.

TJSolo wrote...





RoF, clip size, ammo...etc are factors not even in the mechanics of ME1 to begin with.

They are not and they brought more variety to the guns then what there was in ME1

TJSolo wrote...



The progression of weapon power has been taken out of weapon progression and placed within the upgrade system. The universal upgrades do not provide variety only progression.

I do not state the upgrades in ME2 provide more variety. What I state is they provide the same progression as 1,2,3,5,6,7,10 gear did in ME1.

[ccconda]

ME2 upgrades are few, and unimaginitive. Fine, ME1 had a ton of 1/2/3/4/5 levels for the same weapon, but what ME1 WON with is weapon customization. Like in ff13, you use the same weapon for the entire game but can customize it and level it up. That's RPG (forget what RPG stands for letter-by-letter, remember what it represents).

[EternalWolfe]

A thought occurs to me. This isn't a suggestion for ME3 or anything, but I'd kinda like to hear others thougts about it.



For those who are complaining about the lack of notable progression, would it had been better if:

*the upgrades were weapon-based(ie Avenger Upgrade and Vindicator Upgrade would be two different upgrades). These could be named in several ways to indicate your making a new gun.

*When a gun is upgraded, it changes its name slightly, such as adding roman numerals(the lazy way) or perhaps changing the numbers to indicate the fact its an upgraded weapon.



This would increase the number of guns(an illusion of numbers, but so was ME1), as well as increase the number of upgrades(which could then have been used to help combat the complaints about lack of loot).

[addiction21]

EternalWolfe wrote...

A thought occurs to me. This isn't a suggestion for ME3 or anything, but I'd kinda like to hear others thougts about it.

For those who are complaining about the lack of notable progression, would it had been better if:
*the upgrades were weapon-based(ie Avenger Upgrade and Vindicator Upgrade would be two different upgrades). These could be named in several ways to indicate your making a new gun.
*When a gun is upgraded, it changes its name slightly, such as adding roman numerals(the lazy way) or perhaps changing the numbers to indicate the fact its an upgraded weapon.

This would increase the number of guns(an illusion of numbers, but so was ME1), as well as increase the number of upgrades(which could then have been used to help combat the complaints about lack of loot).

Add in a couple mod slots and the illusion would be complete.

[Hizoka003]

the problem i have is with te mockery of the RPGish elements, the skill system is pointless, you do not need to invest in anything to beat the game on any difficulty. They pretty much killed exploration, randomly getting a planet to drop onto for a 10 minute "quest" that as no impact on the game other then getting an e-mail is lame





they boast about the hours of dialog yet very little of it actually grants you quests. Things that made the first game better are the back handed qust givers, like the radio in the elevators on the citadel, that made you feel like you are in a world, a load screen makes you feel like you are just playing a game