297 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Question - would you have found it better if, instead of 'Weapon Damage' Upgrades, you found 'upgrades' that were weapon-based, and would replace your gun with a new name(and upgraded stats)?  Example: You find the Avenger Upgrade, which turns the Avenger into the Avenger II.  Or you could change part of the name, like the numbers, to denote progression.  Either way.

Also, on another note, I would prefer a modular weapon system, like the armor(although I'd like more peices in both of them).  I like the feel of building my own weapon/armor.  On that idea, would you prefer one weapon(of each type) with multiple mods that have strong effects(you could, with the right mods, build both the Predator and the Hand Cannon from the same basic pistol) or multiple pistols with mods with smaller effects(so that you can't break the system by building a gun with huge power and a large clip, ect, ect)?

What I'd prefer is basically the ME1 system, but with the guns themselves designed in a better fashion. Less crap and redundant stuff and less overpowered to the exclusion of everything else like the Master Spectre Gear. Give us about half a dozen of each weapon, with visible statistical factors and features that can allow us to determine which weapon we want (higher damage or higher rate of fire, higher shield bypass or more thermal clips, etc.) and then allow us to mod the weapons in a similar fashion to ME1 to gives bonuses to certain factors or additional abilities the gun wouldn't normally have. Keep the ME2-style generic research upgrades as well so one can gradually improve their weapon more in general. You don't even need to go back to the inventory screens ME1 had since this could all be done in your Weapons Loadout ala ME2.

[newcomplex]

lukandroll wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

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

Also, How's ME2 better on that regard??

Armor 1
Damage Protection: Unknown
Shields: Unknown
Tech/Biotic: Unknown
Gives 1% more shields

Armor 2
Damage Protection: Unknown
Shields: Unknown
Tech/Biotic: Unknown
Gives 1% more health

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

Actually, since you have less shields in ME2, the small boosts, while not huge, make a bigger difference. For example adding all the shield boosters together makes a difference, even in Insanity. So your point is pretty void. I'm not going to deny it isn't extrodinarly differen't from ME, but than again, I could also view it as you attacking yourself. I mean you defend the system in ME, but attack the system in ME2 which isn't drasticly different.

Also, your little post at the end made you look like a moron, you did a horrible job mocking his post. Here's tip, next time you do it, don't act like a ******.

Reported for insults.
And for your information, I was imitating a ******, the original poster.

And about your point on the shield, that's completely BS, I tried all this supposed stats, and the difference Its lo little that again, you end up swithching amor only for cosmetic values....

And you're wrong again, look on the other page I already say that ME1 had problems aswell, I even posted some solutions for these problems.

So next time, before calling me a ******, be a little more mature, and read the whole thing.
Selective reading, FTW!

Reported for maliciously reported.

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 02:37 .

[lukandroll]

Terror_K wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Question - would you have found it better if, instead of 'Weapon Damage' Upgrades, you found 'upgrades' that were weapon-based, and would replace your gun with a new name(and upgraded stats)?  Example: You find the Avenger Upgrade, which turns the Avenger into the Avenger II.  Or you could change part of the name, like the numbers, to denote progression.  Either way.

Also, on another note, I would prefer a modular weapon system, like the armor(although I'd like more peices in both of them).  I like the feel of building my own weapon/armor.  On that idea, would you prefer one weapon(of each type) with multiple mods that have strong effects(you could, with the right mods, build both the Predator and the Hand Cannon from the same basic pistol) or multiple pistols with mods with smaller effects(so that you can't break the system by building a gun with huge power and a large clip, ect, ect)?

What I'd prefer is basically the ME1 system, but with the guns themselves designed in a better fashion. Less crap and redundant stuff and less overpowered to the exclusion of everything else like the Master Spectre Gear. Give us about half a dozen of each weapon, with visible statistical factors and features that can allow us to determine which weapon we want (higher damage or higher rate of fire, higher shield bypass or more thermal clips, etc.) and then allow us to mod the weapons in a similar fashion to ME1 to gives bonuses to certain factors or additional abilities the gun wouldn't normally have. Keep the ME2-style generic research upgrades as well so one can gradually improve their weapon more in general. You don't even need to go back to the inventory screens ME1 had since this could all be done in your Weapons Loadout ala ME2.

That's a good idea actually, the research mods, could work as a LEVEL system for the guns....
That way you could upgrade your Avenger from Lv1 to 10 (lv 10 should require a ridiculous amount of resources.)

Each upgrade could give you the option to increase a weapon stat:
Like: Damage, Accuracy, Shield Bypass, Rate of Fire, Etc...

[lukandroll]

newcomplex wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

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

Also, How's ME2 better on that regard??

Armor 1
Damage Protection: Unknown
Shields: Unknown
Tech/Biotic: Unknown
Gives 1% more shields

Armor 2
Damage Protection: Unknown
Shields: Unknown
Tech/Biotic: Unknown
Gives 1% more health

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

Actually, since you have less shields in ME2, the small boosts, while not huge, make a bigger difference. For example adding all the shield boosters together makes a difference, even in Insanity. So your point is pretty void. I'm not going to deny it isn't extrodinarly differen't from ME, but than again, I could also view it as you attacking yourself. I mean you defend the system in ME, but attack the system in ME2 which isn't drasticly different.

Also, your little post at the end made you look like a moron, you did a horrible job mocking his post. Here's tip, next time you do it, don't act like a ******.

Reported for insults.
And for your information, I was imitating a ******, the original poster.

And about your point on the shield, that's completely BS, I tried all this supposed stats, and the difference Its lo little that again, you end up swithching amor only for cosmetic values....

And you're wrong again, look on the other page I already say that ME1 had problems aswell, I even posted some solutions for these problems.

So next time, before calling me a ******, be a little more mature, and read the whole thing.
Selective reading, FTW!

Reported for maliciously reported, which, unlike your illiterate reasons, are actually stated to be against the rules.   

http://social.biowar...page/site-rules

We already setled this up by PM.
I recomend you to do the same and keep things on topic.

[newcomplex]

lukandroll wrote...

Don't know where to start...well
1) In case you didn't notice the incredible and ridiculous amount of sarcasm in my post, I like to clarify this, I was clearly mocking you.. 

Oh, so you were trolling.   Reported for trolling.   Mocking me for what?   Making a valid claim?

2) So you took the time to write a long and good explanation of why you believe what you believe, and you ruin it adding childish insults on it??? LUL, GUD JOB.

Ad-Hominem.   Good job.   Calling you a braindead bat****s retard has nothing to do with the validity of my claims.

3) The numbers you provide are completely AIR, because there is no way to tell that (other than guessing) , how much damage your shield take, or how much damage your shepard does in real numbers. ME2 doesn't provide stats so you can't really now any of this.

Your retard is showing.   Data gathered from .ini and a post by christina on balance forums.   Made public knowledge on ME wikia database.   http://masseffect.wi...ass_Effect_Wiki

In any case, even if you stack armors to provide a better bonus, they make little to no difference in battle, (I especificaly tested out the damage bonus with the widow the other day)
So my point is still intact, the bonus that this armor parts end up giving, are not enough to make a difference, so you'll end up choosing what armor "looks" better, rather of what is more "strategicaly" better.

30% more HP doesn't matter?   k

4) ME1 had the tactical benneficts of a armor modding system which you conviniently omited. So even if you had a similar armor you could mod it to perform different.

BUT I THOUGHT 30% MORE HEALTH DIDN'T MATTER HERP DERP.  

Ignoring your retarded fallacious piece of logic, the total net gain achieved through upgrades is around the same as the total net gain achieved through gear.    Upgrades gave a ~10% higher benefit, but relatively, their close enough.   

5) I'd never said, that ME1 system was perfect, as matter of fact, I clearly stated that some gear in ME1 was redundant and pointless.

Shut up.  

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 mars 2010 - 02:36 .

[newcomplex]

In case telling you to shut up made you get your panties in a bunch....what you said has no ****ing relevance to anything because I was argueing against someone elses point that ME1 had a armor system that didn't suck balls.

[lukandroll]

newcomplex wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

Don't know where to start...well
1) In case you didn't notice the incredible and ridiculous amount of sarcasm in my post, I like to clarify this, I was clearly mocking you.. 

Oh, so you were trolling.   Reported for trolling.   Mocking me for what?   Making a valid claim?

2) So you took the time to write a long and good explanation of why you believe what you believe, and you ruin it adding childish insults on it??? LUL, GUD JOB.

Ad-Hominem.   Good job.   Calling you a braindead bat****s retard has nothing to do with the validity of my claims.

3) The numbers you provide are completely AIR, because there is no way to tell that (other than guessing) , how much damage your shield take, or how much damage your shepard does in real numbers. ME2 doesn't provide stats so you can't really now any of this.

Your retard is showing.   Data gathered from .ini and a post by christina on balance forums.   Made public knowledge on ME wikia database.   http://masseffect.wi...ass_Effect_Wiki

In any case, even if you stack armors to provide a better bonus, they make little to no difference in battle, (I especificaly tested out the damage bonus with the widow the other day)
So my point is still intact, the bonus that this armor parts end up giving, are not enough to make a difference, so you'll end up choosing what armor "looks" better, rather of what is more "strategicaly" better.

30% more HP doesn't matter?   k

4) ME1 had the tactical benneficts of a armor modding system which you conviniently omited. So even if you had a similar armor you could mod it to perform different.

BUT I THOUGHT 30% MORE HEALTH DIDN'T MATTER HERP DERP.  

Ignoring your retarded fallacious piece of logic, the total net gain achieved through upgrades is around the same as the total net gain achieved through gear.    Upgrades gave a ~10% higher benefit, but relatively, their close enough.   

5) I'd never said, that ME1 system was perfect, as matter of fact, I clearly stated that some gear in ME1 was redundant and pointless.

Shut up.  

Exactly my mocking post was to point out that ME2 system is different in its implementation, but in the end IT isn't that far form what ME1 offered.
As a matter of fact, if you read my first sentece I'm telling you this, no need for all this drama queen stuff.
So again, how's ME2 armor system better than ME1, on anything other than just comsmetics?.

Modifié par lukandroll, 03 mars 2010 - 02:45 .

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Chuck_Vu wrote...

I like options... I would prefer it if the game allowed for multiple routes and resoulutions to missions/quests. But leave a clearly defined path for the corridor shooter crowds. From what I gather, it's what they prefer. I encourage them to take it, and would not think less of them for doing so. But I ask them to likewise encourage me to take the less traveled path and explore the back alleys and rooftops, and possibly find an alternate solution to that same mission/quest that they did, at the same time not think any less of me for doing so. The more options, the more people can enjoy the game, because it allows a multitude of people with differing play styles to play the same game. There's nothing wrong with alot of options. The great thing about options is... THEY ARE OPTIONAL.

I would think it would be great if I could walk to some bad-guy base with a high Paragon/Renegade rating and ring the doorbell and convince the door man that I was delivering pizza (bomb), while my friend plays the exact same mission and kills everything that moved in the same base. Neither way was wrong or better then the other. It's just different strokes for differnt folks.

This is where I feel ME 1 and 2 could improve the RPG aspects of the game. It would make a multitude of people happy. Because now (in theory), the shooter crowd can go guns blazing, the talkers can talk their enemies to death, the sneakers can go skulking about to their hearts content, etc. And there is nothing wrong with any method, you could play as you like.

Current combat mechanics are perfect by the way, don't change them. And as a reviewer said: Bioware no longers scores points for writing - birds fly, fishes swim and Bioware has excellent writing.

I agree with you and I'd would LOVE to have more options for ways to do missions (even though I'm part of the shooter crowd as well....that doesn't mean I always wanna go down the hall killing everything with me "l33t" skills).

The only problem with that is that it would require the devs to do so much more work and it would be more of a strain and the terrains and buildings would be like ME1 again.... all look the same and the graphics wouldn't be as good.

[EternalWolfe]

Terror_K wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Question - would you have found it better if, instead of 'Weapon Damage' Upgrades, you found 'upgrades' that were weapon-based, and would replace your gun with a new name(and upgraded stats)?  Example: You find the Avenger Upgrade, which turns the Avenger into the Avenger II.  Or you could change part of the name, like the numbers, to denote progression.  Either way.

Also, on another note, I would prefer a modular weapon system, like the armor(although I'd like more peices in both of them).  I like the feel of building my own weapon/armor.  On that idea, would you prefer one weapon(of each type) with multiple mods that have strong effects(you could, with the right mods, build both the Predator and the Hand Cannon from the same basic pistol) or multiple pistols with mods with smaller effects(so that you can't break the system by building a gun with huge power and a large clip, ect, ect)?

What I'd prefer is basically the ME1 system, but with the guns themselves designed in a better fashion. Less crap and redundant stuff and less overpowered to the exclusion of everything else like the Master Spectre Gear. Give us about half a dozen of each weapon, with visible statistical factors and features that can allow us to determine which weapon we want (higher damage or higher rate of fire, higher shield bypass or more thermal clips, etc.) and then allow us to mod the weapons in a similar fashion to ME1 to gives bonuses to certain factors or additional abilities the gun wouldn't normally have. Keep the ME2-style generic research upgrades as well so one can gradually improve their weapon more in general. You don't even need to go back to the inventory screens ME1 had since this could all be done in your Weapons Loadout ala ME2.

I would have no problem with this system.  Its basically a hybrid between the two - cutting out the overload of crap from ME1 and bringing back the modifications, while sticking to the (imo, more sensible in-world) system of ME2.  5-6 weapons would be about right(and still hope to retain notable differences between weapons), and while I might prefer the modular system in itself, being able to mod my guns to my desire would be more then welcome.

As for stats, I don't even know why they aren't in anyways.  Even if they wanted to avoid the stat list like most RPGs have, it wouldn't be suprising to see this description:

Damage Potential(Berhner Scale): 10.8
Heatsink Durability: 40 shots
Firing Modes: Automatic
Rate of Fire: 850 rpm
Recoil: *some viable scientific measure, or some made-up scale like my Berhner Scale*

*M-8 Avenger current description*

And, if you wanted some more info(that would be hard to add in like the above) you could have the character who spends time in there(Jacob, in this case) have notes at the bottom of each weapon.

For example, at the end of the Viper description:

Notes: Tests show that the Viper is only 35% more effective against armor, but shows 15% increase in effectivness vs shields and barriers.

[Chuck_Vu]

xxSgt_Reed_24xx wrote...

Chuck_Vu wrote...

I like options... I would prefer it if the game allowed for multiple routes and resoulutions to missions/quests. But leave a clearly defined path for the corridor shooter crowds. From what I gather, it's what they prefer. I encourage them to take it, and would not think less of them for doing so. But I ask them to likewise encourage me to take the less traveled path and explore the back alleys and rooftops, and possibly find an alternate solution to that same mission/quest that they did, at the same time not think any less of me for doing so. The more options, the more people can enjoy the game, because it allows a multitude of people with differing play styles to play the same game. There's nothing wrong with alot of options. The great thing about options is... THEY ARE OPTIONAL.

I would think it would be great if I could walk to some bad-guy base with a high Paragon/Renegade rating and ring the doorbell and convince the door man that I was delivering pizza (bomb), while my friend plays the exact same mission and kills everything that moved in the same base. Neither way was wrong or better then the other. It's just different strokes for differnt folks.

This is where I feel ME 1 and 2 could improve the RPG aspects of the game. It would make a multitude of people happy. Because now (in theory), the shooter crowd can go guns blazing, the talkers can talk their enemies to death, the sneakers can go skulking about to their hearts content, etc. And there is nothing wrong with any method, you could play as you like.

Current combat mechanics are perfect by the way, don't change them. And as a reviewer said: Bioware no longers scores points for writing - birds fly, fishes swim and Bioware has excellent writing.

I agree with you and I'd would LOVE to have more options for ways to do missions (even though I'm part of the shooter crowd as well....that doesn't mean I always wanna go down the hall killing everything with me "l33t" skills).

The only problem with that is that it would require the devs to do so much more work and it would be more of a strain and the terrains and buildings would be like ME1 again.... all look the same and the graphics wouldn't be as good.

Given a choice between graphics or gameplay - I would happily sacrifice graphics for gameplay any day...

Example:  Wow, that sure is a pretty door.  Can I go through it?  Nope.  So what was the point of that door?

[TJSolo]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Iwould have no problem with this system.  Its basically a hybrid between the two - cutting out the overload of crap from ME1 and bringing back the modifications, while sticking to the (imo, more sensible in-world) system of ME2.  5-6 weapons would be about right(and still hope to retain notable differences between weapons), and while I might prefer the modular system in itself, being able to mod my guns to my desire would be more then welcome.

As for stats, I don't even know why they aren't in anyways.  Even if they wanted to avoid the stat list like most RPGs have, it wouldn't be suprising to see this description:

Damage Potential(Berhner Scale): 10.8
Heatsink Durability: 40 shots
Firing Modes: Automatic
Rate of Fire: 850 rpm
Recoil: *some viable scientific measure, or some made-up scale like my Berhner Scale*

*M-8 Avenger current description*

And, if you wanted some more info(that would be hard to add in like the above) you could have the character who spends time in there(Jacob, in this case) have notes at the bottom of each weapon.

For example, at the end of the Viper description:

Notes: Tests show that the Viper is only 35% more effective against armor, but shows 15% increase in effectivness vs shields and barriers.

I agree with you, not sure why the numbers or at least some stats for the guns aren't available in-game.

Those numbers you want are in the game files and used for each gun. Damage, RoF, damage modifiers against x defense, refire, recoil, and such.
Someone has even made an interpreted chart.

[Karlojey]

I like the new system. I'm just too lazy to manage an inventory hehehehe.

[ian528]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Chuck_Vu wrote...

I like options... I would prefer it if the game allowed for multiple routes and resoulutions to missions/quests. But leave a clearly defined path for the corridor shooter crowds. From what I gather, it's what they prefer. I encourage them to take it, and would not think less of them for doing so. But I ask them to likewise encourage me to take the less traveled path and explore the back alleys and rooftops, and possibly find an alternate solution to that same mission/quest that they did, at the same time not think any less of me for doing so. The more options, the more people can enjoy the game, because it allows a multitude of people with differing play styles to play the same game. There's nothing wrong with alot of options. The great thing about options is... THEY ARE OPTIONAL.

I would think it would be great if I could walk to some bad-guy base with a high Paragon/Renegade rating and ring the doorbell and convince the door man that I was delivering pizza (bomb), while my friend plays the exact same mission and kills everything that moved in the same base. Neither way was wrong or better then the other. It's just different strokes for differnt folks.

This is where I feel ME 1 and 2 could improve the RPG aspects of the game. It would make a multitude of people happy. Because now (in theory), the shooter crowd can go guns blazing, the talkers can talk their enemies to death, the sneakers can go skulking about to their hearts content, etc. And there is nothing wrong with any method, you could play as you like.

Current combat mechanics are perfect by the way, don't change them. And as a reviewer said: Bioware no longers scores points for writing - birds fly, fishes swim and Bioware has excellent writing.

This is one thing I'd like to see - multiple ways to resolves a mission.  We've already gone down the road where XP is rewarded for mission completion only, next step is to make it where you can do the mission in multiple ways - stealthy, smash the front door, talk your way in, or nuke the damn place from orbit while watching reruns on the extranet.  At the end of the day, the mission gets down our way, we get our little reward, and we play on.

This is extremely valid criticism.  One of the main reasons to move to any system that devalues kills is the ability to try radically different approaches to a mission.  Yes you will have to fight but bluff and blarney can get you a long way.  I can also see this costing much more money because you are building multiple games to fit the options that you create.  I would suggest that this is best initially tackled in some sort of add on mission to see how much more it adds to coding.  Talking your way through a mission and not once pulling a gun would be interesting. 

[addiction21]

Deus Ex like levels... I like that idea.

[EternalWolfe]

ian528 wrote...

This is extremely valid criticism.  One of the main reasons to move to any system that devalues kills is the ability to try radically different approaches to a mission.  Yes you will have to fight but bluff and blarney can get you a long way.  I can also see this costing much more money because you are building multiple games to fit the options that you create.  I would suggest that this is best initially tackled in some sort of add on mission to see how much more it adds to coding.  Talking your way through a mission and not once pulling a gun would be interesting. 

Actually, this was already in ME1 to a point.  There were 4 ways of getting a garage pass(although 3 of them were just different 'endings' to one path).  You could get to Benizia in three ways(stealth, Hot Labs, or strait through).  And in UNC: Major Kyle, you could talk your way though it and ccomplete it, or kill everyone in sight.

I do agree it takes more money and time.  I used to play around with my toolset in TES: Morrowind making various quests with multiple paths.  It really all depends on how far your paths split.  This is the main problem I see with it in ME3.

[ian528]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Actually, this was already in ME1 to a point.  There were 4 ways of getting a garage pass(although 3 of them were just different 'endings' to one path).  You could get to Benizia in three ways(stealth, Hot Labs, or strait through).  And in UNC: Major Kyle, you could talk your way though it and ccomplete it, or kill everyone in sight.

I do agree it takes more money and time.  I used to play around with my toolset in TES: Morrowind making various quests with multiple paths.  It really all depends on how far your paths split.  This is the main problem I see with it in ME3.

You are correct sir it was done in ME1 on just a few missions.  However, I am not sure you got the same rewards for not killing that you would get for killing.  Switching to mission based experience will actually make it a more appropriate reward system.  This opens up a possibility for more and varied skills to work with how you play the game making it ever more role playing.  I like this idea a great deal.  Cost for Bioware would be the biggest sticking point for them.

[EternalWolfe]

ian528 wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Actually, this was already in ME1 to a point.  There were 4 ways of getting a garage pass(although 3 of them were just different 'endings' to one path).  You could get to Benizia in three ways(stealth, Hot Labs, or strait through).  And in UNC: Major Kyle, you could talk your way though it and ccomplete it, or kill everyone in sight.

I do agree it takes more money and time.  I used to play around with my toolset in TES: Morrowind making various quests with multiple paths.  It really all depends on how far your paths split.  This is the main problem I see with it in ME3.

You are correct sir it was done in ME1 on just a few missions.  However, I am not sure you got the same rewards for not killing that you would get for killing.  Switching to mission based experience will actually make it a more appropriate reward system.  This opens up a possibility for more and varied skills to work with how you play the game making it ever more role playing.  I like this idea a great deal.  Cost for Bioware would be the biggest sticking point for them.

You didn't get the same rewards - that was the problem.  If you choose to talk through Major Kyle, you missed out on a lot of experience(you could go back and kill them anyways, but that negates the point of role-playing).  You got more experiance in Noveria by starting the stealth path, then going to the hot labs, rather then choosing any other path.  And one path in Noveria made you miss out on xp as well(not sure if the three endings to the other path had different xp awards).

But, yeah, cost is the biggest thing, but, like I said, that depends on how much the paths diverge.  We can only wait and see, I suppose.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Taking the previous concept.



What if you had say a weapon like the Avenger and you had three options



Fire rate

Firepower

penatration



and you could choose one each time you upgraded it for a total of lets say, five times.



Samething for armor, some might be stronger in shields already, but whose to say you couldn't personally give a 10% permanet boost to that paticular armor?



And let you have 3 variations of the samething so you can have a gun for every situation.

[Chuck_Vu]

EternalWolfe wrote...

ian528 wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Actually, this was already in ME1 to a point.  There were 4 ways of getting a garage pass(although 3 of them were just different 'endings' to one path).  You could get to Benizia in three ways(stealth, Hot Labs, or strait through).  And in UNC: Major Kyle, you could talk your way though it and ccomplete it, or kill everyone in sight.

I do agree it takes more money and time.  I used to play around with my toolset in TES: Morrowind making various quests with multiple paths.  It really all depends on how far your paths split.  This is the main problem I see with it in ME3.

You are correct sir it was done in ME1 on just a few missions.  However, I am not sure you got the same rewards for not killing that you would get for killing.  Switching to mission based experience will actually make it a more appropriate reward system.  This opens up a possibility for more and varied skills to work with how you play the game making it ever more role playing.  I like this idea a great deal.  Cost for Bioware would be the biggest sticking point for them.

You didn't get the same rewards - that was the problem.  If you choose to talk through Major Kyle, you missed out on a lot of experience(you could go back and kill them anyways, but that negates the point of role-playing).  You got more experiance in Noveria by starting the stealth path, then going to the hot labs, rather then choosing any other path.  And one path in Noveria made you miss out on xp as well(not sure if the three endings to the other path had different xp awards).

But, yeah, cost is the biggest thing, but, like I said, that depends on how much the paths diverge.  We can only wait and see, I suppose.

Again, this is where I feel both ME 1 &2 could have used the improvement.  To me personally, the meat and potatoes of a Role Playing Game have always been Options and Exploration.  Stats like Strength, Charisma & how much damage an assault rifle does are just game mechanics - nothing more.  Having ability to chose between possible paths & resolutions for a mission (run and gun, stealth, diplomacy)  is far more valuable then a "Helmet of +5 to Head Shot".  But the helmet would be nice too (icing on the cake if you will).  If Bioware (or any developer for that matter) pulls this off successfully, they would win a much larger market - more people buying the game.

In this aspect could ME be a better RPG?  Yes.

And who ever came up with scanning should be locked in a room for 8 hours scanning those planets.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Chuck_Vu wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

ian528 wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Actually, this was already in ME1 to a point.  There were 4 ways of getting a garage pass(although 3 of them were just different 'endings' to one path).  You could get to Benizia in three ways(stealth, Hot Labs, or strait through).  And in UNC: Major Kyle, you could talk your way though it and ccomplete it, or kill everyone in sight.

I do agree it takes more money and time.  I used to play around with my toolset in TES: Morrowind making various quests with multiple paths.  It really all depends on how far your paths split.  This is the main problem I see with it in ME3.

You are correct sir it was done in ME1 on just a few missions.  However, I am not sure you got the same rewards for not killing that you would get for killing.  Switching to mission based experience will actually make it a more appropriate reward system.  This opens up a possibility for more and varied skills to work with how you play the game making it ever more role playing.  I like this idea a great deal.  Cost for Bioware would be the biggest sticking point for them.

You didn't get the same rewards - that was the problem.  If you choose to talk through Major Kyle, you missed out on a lot of experience(you could go back and kill them anyways, but that negates the point of role-playing).  You got more experiance in Noveria by starting the stealth path, then going to the hot labs, rather then choosing any other path.  And one path in Noveria made you miss out on xp as well(not sure if the three endings to the other path had different xp awards).

But, yeah, cost is the biggest thing, but, like I said, that depends on how much the paths diverge.  We can only wait and see, I suppose.

Again, this is where I feel both ME 1 &2 could have used the improvement.  To me personally, the meat and potatoes of a Role Playing Game have always been Options and Exploration.  Stats like Strength, Charisma & how much damage an assault rifle does are just game mechanics - nothing more.  Having ability to chose between possible paths & resolutions for a mission (run and gun, stealth, diplomacy)  is far more valuable then a "Helmet of +5 to Head Shot".  But the helmet would be nice too (icing on the cake if you will).  If Bioware (or any developer for that matter) pulls this off successfully, they would win a much larger market - more people buying the game.

In this aspect could ME be a better RPG?  Yes.

And who ever came up with scanning should be locked in a room for 8 hours scanning those planets.

Mass Effect was never a traditional RPG, so you can't really argue for it to be a better RPG. You can ask for more traditional elements, but you can't ask to turn it into more of something it will never be. You want elements you are familier with, as I pointed out with my OP their are plenty of RPG elements still their and kicking. Being able to go gunning, or stealthy is a decision sure, but it doesn't make it more of an RPG because most shooters include that, no matter how minor the role.

Modifié par A Fhaol Bhig, 03 mars 2010 - 10:41 .

[Chuck_Vu]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Chuck_Vu wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

ian528 wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Actually, this was already in ME1 to a point.  There were 4 ways of getting a garage pass(although 3 of them were just different 'endings' to one path).  You could get to Benizia in three ways(stealth, Hot Labs, or strait through).  And in UNC: Major Kyle, you could talk your way though it and ccomplete it, or kill everyone in sight.

I do agree it takes more money and time.  I used to play around with my toolset in TES: Morrowind making various quests with multiple paths.  It really all depends on how far your paths split.  This is the main problem I see with it in ME3.

You are correct sir it was done in ME1 on just a few missions.  However, I am not sure you got the same rewards for not killing that you would get for killing.  Switching to mission based experience will actually make it a more appropriate reward system.  This opens up a possibility for more and varied skills to work with how you play the game making it ever more role playing.  I like this idea a great deal.  Cost for Bioware would be the biggest sticking point for them.

You didn't get the same rewards - that was the problem.  If you choose to talk through Major Kyle, you missed out on a lot of experience(you could go back and kill them anyways, but that negates the point of role-playing).  You got more experiance in Noveria by starting the stealth path, then going to the hot labs, rather then choosing any other path.  And one path in Noveria made you miss out on xp as well(not sure if the three endings to the other path had different xp awards).

But, yeah, cost is the biggest thing, but, like I said, that depends on how much the paths diverge.  We can only wait and see, I suppose.

Again, this is where I feel both ME 1 &2 could have used the improvement.  To me personally, the meat and potatoes of a Role Playing Game have always been Options and Exploration.  Stats like Strength, Charisma & how much damage an assault rifle does are just game mechanics - nothing more.  Having ability to chose between possible paths & resolutions for a mission (run and gun, stealth, diplomacy)  is far more valuable then a "Helmet of +5 to Head Shot".  But the helmet would be nice too (icing on the cake if you will).  If Bioware (or any developer for that matter) pulls this off successfully, they would win a much larger market - more people buying the game.

In this aspect could ME be a better RPG?  Yes.

And who ever came up with scanning should be locked in a room for 8 hours scanning those planets.

Mass Effect was never a traditional RPG, so you can't really argue for it to be a better RPG. You can ask for more traditional elements, but you can't ask to turn it into more of something it will never be. You want elements you are familier with, as I pointed out with my OP their are plenty of RPG elements still their and kicking. Being able to go gunning, or stealthy is a decision sure, but it doesn't make it more of an RPG because most shooters include that, no matter how minor the role.

Mass Effect was never a traditional RPG - agreed.  But it still calls itself a RPG, so I can ASK/WISH for it to be a better RPG.  And actually having options between run & gun and stealth it does make it more of an RPG, because it's how YOU choose to play in contrast on how JOHN DOE chooses to play.  And you neglected to mention that most shooters (actually I can't think of any, but I said most to cover that margin of error) don't give you the option to talk your enemy down, or convince them to join your cause.  If it happens in shooter, then it was scripted in a cut scene.  Maybe I don't want to pull my gun at all and convince Villian X that he's wrong and he should atone for his misdeeds by joining my cause or doing some charity work (and have a chance that it might actually work).  Or maybe I want a bloodbath.  I would like the options to do one or the other for the same mission.  In shooters, EVERY mission is resolved the same way - with violence.  In RPG's (the good ones any way), not every mission is resolved the same way - See above example of Major Kyle.

And I wasn't disagreeing with your OP of the RPG elements currently in place in ME 2.  I was just saying there could be more.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Chuck_Vu wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Chuck_Vu wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

ian528 wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Actually, this was already in ME1 to a point.  There were 4 ways of getting a garage pass(although 3 of them were just different 'endings' to one path).  You could get to Benizia in three ways(stealth, Hot Labs, or strait through).  And in UNC: Major Kyle, you could talk your way though it and ccomplete it, or kill everyone in sight.

I do agree it takes more money and time.  I used to play around with my toolset in TES: Morrowind making various quests with multiple paths.  It really all depends on how far your paths split.  This is the main problem I see with it in ME3.

You are correct sir it was done in ME1 on just a few missions.  However, I am not sure you got the same rewards for not killing that you would get for killing.  Switching to mission based experience will actually make it a more appropriate reward system.  This opens up a possibility for more and varied skills to work with how you play the game making it ever more role playing.  I like this idea a great deal.  Cost for Bioware would be the biggest sticking point for them.

You didn't get the same rewards - that was the problem.  If you choose to talk through Major Kyle, you missed out on a lot of experience(you could go back and kill them anyways, but that negates the point of role-playing).  You got more experiance in Noveria by starting the stealth path, then going to the hot labs, rather then choosing any other path.  And one path in Noveria made you miss out on xp as well(not sure if the three endings to the other path had different xp awards).

But, yeah, cost is the biggest thing, but, like I said, that depends on how much the paths diverge.  We can only wait and see, I suppose.

Again, this is where I feel both ME 1 &2 could have used the improvement.  To me personally, the meat and potatoes of a Role Playing Game have always been Options and Exploration.  Stats like Strength, Charisma & how much damage an assault rifle does are just game mechanics - nothing more.  Having ability to chose between possible paths & resolutions for a mission (run and gun, stealth, diplomacy)  is far more valuable then a "Helmet of +5 to Head Shot".  But the helmet would be nice too (icing on the cake if you will).  If Bioware (or any developer for that matter) pulls this off successfully, they would win a much larger market - more people buying the game.

In this aspect could ME be a better RPG?  Yes.

And who ever came up with scanning should be locked in a room for 8 hours scanning those planets.

Mass Effect was never a traditional RPG, so you can't really argue for it to be a better RPG. You can ask for more traditional elements, but you can't ask to turn it into more of something it will never be. You want elements you are familier with, as I pointed out with my OP their are plenty of RPG elements still their and kicking. Being able to go gunning, or stealthy is a decision sure, but it doesn't make it more of an RPG because most shooters include that, no matter how minor the role.

Mass Effect was never a traditional RPG - agreed.  But it still calls itself a RPG, so I can ASK/WISH for it to be a better RPG.  And actually having options between run & gun and stealth it does make it more of an RPG, because it's how YOU choose to play in contrast on how JOHN DOE chooses to play.  And you neglected to mention that most shooters (actually I can't think of any, but I said most to cover that margin of error) don't give you the option to talk your enemy down, or convince them to join your cause.  If it happens in shooter, then it was scripted in a cut scene.  Maybe I don't want to pull my gun at all and convince Villian X that he's wrong and he should atone for his misdeeds by joining my cause or doing some charity work (and have a chance that it might actually work).  Or maybe I want a bloodbath.  I would like the options to do one or the other for the same mission.  In shooters, EVERY mission is resolved the same way - with violence.  In RPG's (the good ones any way), not every mission is resolved the same way - See above example of Major Kyle.

And I wasn't disagreeing with your OP of the RPG elements currently in place in ME 2.  I was just saying there could be more.

I suppose you can.

I know it can be an RPG element that point of choice, but I guess I wasn't clear when I said that you can do it, not that its common. I can stealth through levels in halo or Thief for example, and god forbid I not mention Splinter Cell (which is more action, I know, but it does have guns that you use alot) but just because I CAN do it, does it make it an RPG if I'm presented the option of playing half, some, or all of the level in the shadows? No, it's just a choice, and that choice doens't mean it's an RPG element now does it?

Also, you neglected to mention that most games in GENERAL don't allow you to talk to your enemies and say "join me" and that most missions are resolved in violence.

Actually, I think FF is a good RPG, but every fight is done pretty much the same way, but that doesn't make it less of an RPG, or less of a game for that.

I wasn't exactly attacking you for disagreeing with me, I was more or less just checking to make sure you read the post, and weren't just saying that because you saw the title of the thread.

Modifié par A Fhaol Bhig, 03 mars 2010 - 11:48 .

[Chuck_Vu]

@A Fhaol Bhig - I wasn't about to quote you and have this 10 page quote fest. But, your right, I did neglect that most Console/Computer games in general don't allow you to talk down your enemy and/or convince them to join you. This is a carry-over from my tabletop days. *sigh*



Advantage of Console/Computer RPGs - the computer handles all that invintory & number crunching for you (I hated that, it's almost as tedious as planet scanning). Say what you want about ME 1 invintory system, it beats pen and paper anyday.



Advantage of Tabletop RPG - Unlimited imagination.



I understand that current technology doesn't allow for endless options, but i would like more options in these games.



And if your FF is Final Fantasy, then your right about your assessment of that. But it could be more of an RPG if we (the players) had more options.



You and I have differing opinions on things, take that and apply it a game (not ME, it's kinda obvious that we both enjoy it, otherwise we both wouldn't be here at the same time) that allows you to complete the mission your way, and me to complete the same mission my way. We are both richer for it for it appeals to both of us and our differing play styles. If it only catered to my tastes, you don't gain from it, and vice versa. I don't want that. I want both of us and other to enjoy it. We all gain from options, not lose from having options.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Don't get me wrong man, I wouldn't mind more RPG elements and choices, I'm just saying don't over do it.



I've never played tabletop, I can't really say anything beyond the rules I learned over the years.

[Chuck_Vu]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Don't get me wrong man, I wouldn't mind more RPG elements and choices, I'm just saying don't over do it.

I've never played tabletop, I can't really say anything beyond the rules I learned over the years.

I don't think you can over do it.   Because having more RPG elements and choices, boil down to this - You can choose not to take it.  In Oblivion you could murder everyone in any town, or you leave them alone (except for essential storyline characters).  No one is forcing you to do either.  And yes, I know, that game has it's flaws as well.  But that should be discussed on Bethesda's forums, not here.  Most gamers, I think, would leave the towns people/villagers alone.  Some of us, would try it.  I did, and I actually made a mini game out of it - see how long it would take the guardsmen to wear me down and kill me.  There were houses I broke into, and there were house I didn't.  I didn't have to any of it.  I chose the option to do so.  If you played that game, and did things differently, I would not think less of you for not taking the options I did.  I played the game the way I wanted to.  I would want you to play that same game the way you want to, not the way I would want to play that game.  That's my point of having more options.