10273 réponses à ce sujet

[KitsuneRommel]

Oblarg wrote...

1.  Inventory and Character Building.
It was dumbed down.  There is no way around it.  Fewer abilities (only three per squad member with the exception of Shepard?  Honestly?), completely linear gear progression (if you can even call it gear progression), and general lameness (everything was bland, even with the ability evolutions).  Please bring back the inventory for ME3.  Also, weapon skills are not a bad idea, however ammo works better as an upgrade than as a skill.

Ah, yes. Character building. Having this sort of weapon skill system might make sense if instead of trained soldiers your team consisted of common people. In the hindsight I should have scrapped First Aid and taken Shotguns instead.



Ah, yes. Inventory. No no no no no no! I don't want the I-X items back. Just give us some basic types and handle the rest with researchable/buyable upgrades.

[Oblarg]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

1.  Inventory and Character Building.
It was dumbed down.  There is no way around it.  Fewer abilities (only three per squad member with the exception of Shepard?  Honestly?), completely linear gear progression (if you can even call it gear progression), and general lameness (everything was bland, even with the ability evolutions).  Please bring back the inventory for ME3.  Also, weapon skills are not a bad idea, however ammo works better as an upgrade than as a skill.

Ah, yes. Character building. Having this sort of weapon skill system might make sense if instead of trained soldiers your team consisted of common people. In the hindsight I should have scrapped First Aid and taken Shotguns instead.



Ah, yes. Inventory. No no no no no no! I don't want the I-X items back. Just give us some basic types and handle the rest with researchable/buyable upgrades.

Because obviously bad implementation on the inventory means the idea of an inventory is worthless, right?  Right?

And, I don't know about you, but I like choosing between being a crack marksman and a medic.  It gives my character a more clearly defined role.  The skill-ups in ME2 were just bland.

[KitsuneRommel]

uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, it felt awesome. And unbalanced and unchalleging.

Is there any character class in ME1 that stays even a bit challenging in later levels?

And, I don't know about you, but I like choosing between being a crack
marksman and a medic.

Sure... if I actually NEEDED the skill.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 29 mai 2010 - 05:56 .

[KitsuneRommel]

Because obviously bad implementation on the inventory means the idea
of an inventory is worthless, right?  Right?

I gave a suggestion already there. I just said NO to ME1 inventory.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 29 mai 2010 - 05:58 .

[Ecael]

Oblarg wrote...

And, I don't know about you, but I like choosing between being a crack marksman and a medic.  It gives my character a more clearly defined role.  The skill-ups in ME2 were just bland.

The clearly defined role ended the moment you chose your class in ME1/ME2.

[Darth Drago]

About this character build…
I can understand the need to remove the weapon skills to some extent since every Soldier should know how to use all the weapons. However, why do I need to unlock Tech and Biotic powers? Wouldn’t it go hand in hand in saying that my Adept or Engineer Shepard would also be just as skilled and trained to use the Tech and Biotic powers? Yet I still have to unlock them to use them.

Funny how one sided that works in ME2... Oh wait I forgot! ME2 is all about the guns this time.  

[uberdowzen]

Oblarg wrote...

No, because being "evil" and hating everything wasn't intended to be a choice.  Working for the council didn't conflict with the game's moral spectrum.  Working for cerberus does.

So, what the moral spectrum is always working for the council?

There are ways to keep it challenging while still allowing things to feel awesome.  ME2 failed spectacularly at finding a middle-ground.  All the classes, minus powers, play the same - you shoot things for a short while, then sit behind cover while shields regenerate.  I find it boring and unfun, and the classes lack flavor.

Um, if you removed powers, all the classes in ME1 would play the same. The powers are what define them. This is actually exactly how I felt about ME1, all the classes were too similar.

[uberdowzen]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Is there any character class in ME1 that stays even a bit challenging in later levels?

Good point.

[uberdowzen]

Oblarg wrote...

Because obviously bad implementation on the inventory means the idea of an inventory is worthless, right?  Right?

No, but Bioware pointed out that an inventory doesn't really make sense in the context of the world. And it means that they can spend more time on story and missions.

[Ecael]

Darth Drago wrote...


About this character build…
I can understand the need to remove the weapon skills to some extent since every Soldier should know how to use all the weapons. However, why do I need to unlock Tech and Biotic powers? Wouldn’t it go hand in hand in saying that my Adept or Engineer Shepard would also be just as skilled and trained to use the Tech and Biotic powers? Yet I still have to unlock them to use them.

Funny how one sided that works in ME2... Oh wait I forgot! ME2 is all about the guns this time.

Yes, because it clearly has such a massive inventory of weapons.

[Oblarg]

Ecael wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

And, I don't know about you, but I like choosing between being a crack marksman and a medic.  It gives my character a more clearly defined role.  The skill-ups in ME2 were just bland.

The clearly defined role ended the moment you chose your class in ME1/ME2.

Hurr durr, skill charts at max level sure mean a lot, you clever rascal, you!

[bjdbwea]

uberdowzen wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Is there any character class in ME1 that stays even a bit challenging in later levels?

Good point.

Bad point. Is there any character class in ME 2 that proves even a bit of a challenge from the beginning?

[Terror_K]

uberdowzen wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

Because obviously bad implementation on the inventory means the idea of an inventory is worthless, right?  Right?

No, but Bioware pointed out that an inventory doesn't really make sense in the context of the world. And it means that they can spend more time on story and missions.

Neither do thermal clips, and yet...

What the game doesn't necessarily need is an inventory system, but it does need more of an inventory itself. And a better one at that. The current one is as shallow as a dried up puddle and as linear as a game of snakes and ladders with no snakes.

[KitsuneRommel]

bjdbwea wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Is there any character class in ME1 that stays even a bit challenging in later levels?

Good point.

Bad point. Is there any character class in ME 2 that proves even a bit of a challenge from the beginning?

I guess the answer is "no" then.

[Lumikki]

uberdowzen wrote...

Oblarg wrote...

Problems with ME2:

1.  Inventory and Character Building.
It was dumbed down.  There is no way around it.  Fewer abilities (only three per squad member with the exception of Shepard?  Honestly?), completely linear gear progression (if you can even call it gear progression), and general lameness (everything was bland, even with the ability evolutions).  Please bring back the inventory for ME3.  Also, weapon skills are not a bad idea, however ammo works better as an upgrade than as a skill.

Companions with fewer abilities encourage you to manually level them up (in ME1 I pretty much always used auto level for companions), ability evolutions let you create more unique characters and the inventory in ME1 was just a waste of time.

Now I have to agree with OP, because even what you think about Oblarg is right, it was dumped down. NOw I do agree that inventory system was waste of time, but all others where also dumped down. Many customation was rememved, like ability choose armor for squad members. Ability modificate weapons and armors. Also the powers/skills where redused only few, what did not leave much choises to choose. I don't mean that all ME1 skills where done fine, but at least there was more of them. It's like all skills are just combat related, but not even single non combat one. RPG isn't just combat, there is othe social and technical skill prossibilities. Example hacking and by pass, they where totally now about players skill, nothing to do with character abilities. It may work fine, but it's not what RPG is.

uberdowzen wrote...

Oblarg wrote...
4.  Ammo
The first system worked fine, changing it was unecessary and just detracted from the experience.  Running around after thermal clips is not fun.  It also created some rather glaring holes in the lore (oh yeah, these people who have been shipwrecked and cut off from society for ten years have access to technology that was developed two years ago!).

Overheating wasn't much fun at all. It either meant that you could fire almost constantly without pausing (my Vanguard character only overheated like 3 times for the entire game) or you had to be ultra careful. I never have to run around after thermal clips (they basically wave them right in front of your face) and, honestly, it's a lot more fun than overheating in the middle of combat.

Some stuff in ME1 system worked, but not all of them.   I agree running after clips in ground isn't really good, but ability by pass overheat with weapon mods isn't anyting better, because it allowed infinite ammos. What changed hole game just gun blazing rush to battle and  tactics become obsolite. Also ability overheat enemies weapons was beyond idiotic. Who to hell brings weapons in battle what can be disabled by remote by enemy. Even our real life army electronics are protected agaist that. Also in ME1 example pistol did not feel like pistol, more like machine gun.  Let me put this easyer way.

Good things in ME1 was ability modificate ammos and how covers where more natural way. Every other aspect was done better in ME2. Bad thing in ME1 was how weapons feeled, how uber weapons and armors could be, ability py pass the overheat system and ability jam enemy weapon by remote. Bad in ME was need to collect clips from ground and way too many cover possibilities every where.

uberdowzen wrote...

Oblarg wrote...
8.  Linearity
There plot is overwhelmingly linear.  I spent the entire game wanting to tell the Illusive Man to go eat ****, but couldn't until the very end.  I had Kaiden tell off Shepard for something which I, the player, also would have told off Shepard for, yet I had absolutely no choice in the matter because there simply was no option there.  Linearity itself isn't much of a problem, but the game sets up a moral spectrum and wants you to make choices based on it, yet the most fundamental choice isn't yours to make.  The entire "working for Cerberus" plot was hamfisted and unconvincing, and I hope more believable options will be available in ME3.  Even past the Cerberus mess, the only major plot branching was based on one decision at the very end, and whether or not you had completed all the character sidequests.  Lame.  Also, punishing players who walk the middle ground between Paragon and Renegade by making it impossible to resolve the crew conflicts by doing so is stupid design.

I never really understood this, how is the plot more linear than ME1? I'll admit that at first working for Cerberus is somewhat jarring, on the other hand it creates interesting moral choices. Also what's the alternative? If you don't except Cerberus' offer, there's no game. You also seem to be forgetting that in ME1 there was no choice about you becoming a Spectre, or about being sent into the traverse after Saren. ME1's plot wasn't swayed that much based on your choices either.

Yeah, this is what I don't get too. I do see differences between how the main story was run, but linearity was same in both games.

We players have many time asked, that developers does games where our choises actually matter, meaning that there is real consequences from our choises. When they do that, we complain about we don't like those consequences. The moralty or actually it's reputation system is all about consequences of our choises. I do agree that sometimes there could have more choises to handle situation, but that's other matter.

If I really compare ME1 and ME2 moralty system, then I would hava to say, that ME1 was badly done, because it allowed players to bypass all choises where could have been issue for player. I ques I have to explain this, so it's easyer to understand. In ME1 when you do choises, you just choose want Shepard will say. How ever, when there is moral problem, it all comes down how many point you have put in persuade/intimidate, what player can use bypass the issue. Meaning the choises what you made was not connected you ability bypass issues. This is what some players call freedom and good RP. I disagree big time.

Because in reality you just take easy way out to get allways positive outcome. In ME2 there is no easyway out, you choises what you make will have affect, you may have no choise anymore left, because you own made choises in past. This is what some players hate, consequences of they own actions. They feel like it restric they freedom to roleplay, when it's opposite, it's the real roleplaying to be forced to deal you negative ourcome of your own choises.

How ever, there where few situation in ME2 where player had to choose, when player could just wanted to stay neutral. So, neutral path wasn't so well done, it was sometimes too much moralty be good or bad. How ever, complaining about unablity deal negative situation, because players own choises, isn't good thing.

Best example is squad member fight situation, the choosing. Many player can't deal the situation that they can't get both as loyal, when they know it's possible. Only thing what missing from those choises was ability stay neutral and have consequence to lose both loyalty. Ask you self, are you mad because there was no possibility stay out of the fight and lose both loyalty or because you did not have choise to make them both loyalty?

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 mai 2010 - 10:52 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

If I really compare ME1 and ME2 moralty system, then I would hava to say, that ME1 was badly done, because it allowed players to bypass all choises where could have been issue for player. I ques I have to explain this, so it's easyer to understand. In ME1 when you do choises, you just choose want Shepard will say. How ever, when there is moral problem, it all comes down how many point you have put in persuade/intimidate, what player can use bypass the issue. Meaning the choises what you made was not connected you ability bypass issues. This is what some players call freedom and good RP. I disagree big time.

Because in reality you just take easy way out to get allways positive outcome. In ME2 there is no easyway out, you choises what you make will have affect, you may have no choise anymore left, because you own made choises in past. This is what some players hate, consequences of they own actions. They feel like it restric they freedom to roleplay, when it's opposite, it's the real roleplaying to be forced to deal you negative ourcome of your own choises.

I agree with a lof of your post. But not with this. There were situations in ME 1 too where you had to make a choice, for better or worse. And not less than in ME 2. You are right though, that there were also situations where persuade or intimidate skills could quite unrealistically solve an issue. But this is not different in ME 2. For example, without spoiling anything, a simple persuade check is enough to make Tali overcome her distrust of the Geth? Really? But simplified situations like that have always existed in RPGs, I only don't think that it's fair to say ME 2 was an improvement in this regard.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 mai 2010 - 10:53 .

[Terror_K]

ME2 should approach the whole thing in a more KotOR-esque manner. Instead of having the options greyed out they should always be available, but your success should be determined by your score. If a Paragon character suddenly tries to be a badass, they shouldn't have it locked off... but it should fail if they don't have enough of a Renegade score or enough of a "badass" reputation.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

If I really compare ME1 and ME2 moralty system, then I would hava to say, that ME1 was badly done, because it allowed players to bypass all choises where could have been issue for player. I ques I have to explain this, so it's easyer to understand. In ME1 when you do choises, you just choose want Shepard will say. How ever, when there is moral problem, it all comes down how many point you have put in persuade/intimidate, what player can use bypass the issue. Meaning the choises what you made was not connected you ability bypass issues. This is what some players call freedom and good RP. I disagree big time.

Because in reality you just take easy way out to get allways positive outcome. In ME2 there is no easyway out, you choises what you make will have affect, you may have no choise anymore left, because you own made choises in past. This is what some players hate, consequences of they own actions. They feel like it restric they freedom to roleplay, when it's opposite, it's the real roleplaying to be forced to deal you negative ourcome of your own choises.

I agree with a lof of your post. But not with this. There were situations in ME 1 too where you had to make a choice, for better or worse. And not less than in ME 2. You are right though, that there were also situations where persuade or intimidate skills could quite unrealistically solve an issue. But this is not different in ME 2. For example, without spoiling anything, a simple persuade check is enough to make Tali overcome her distrust of the Geth? Really? But simplified situations like that have always existed in RPGs, I only don't think that it's fair to say ME 2 was an improvement in this regard.

I'm not sure what you mean.

In ME2 you choises wasn't just what you say, but they affected you reputation as ruthless or sympathetic. What affected how other npcs see you reputation as what kind of fame you have. This builds fear or respect on npcs. My point is that you choises what you made in pass, builds you consequences what happens later. Meaning, some choise can block or open you choises in future.

If we would just have one persuade skill, then any player who puts point to it, will solve allways any situations. What means the choises what you made when talking, don't really have long term consequences. This allows players solve every situation, like pass has very little meaning. There is no reputation how npcs sees you, just this bypass skill to solve situation.

As for Tali and Geth. When Tali is part of you group and see what you do and what choises you do, it build Tali's respect or fear agaist you. So, when there is time to choose, it can affect Tali's decision making.

Problem having just one persuade skill is that it's allways guarantee positive result for player, if you just keep persuade skill as high as possible. That's not good thing to create multiplexing situation, where actions has consequences.

What ME2 developers did miss was abilty allow player to really be neutral as not make choise based fear or sympathetic, but stay out and let the problem self solved what ever the result is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 mai 2010 - 11:21 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

In ME2 you choises wasn't just what you say, but they affected you reputation as ruthless or sympathetic. What affected how other npcs see you reputation as what kind of fame you have. This builds fear or respect on npcs. My point is that you choises what you made in pass, builds you consequences what happens later. Meaning, some choise can block or open you choises in future.

What are you talking about? There is no such thing in ME 2. There is in an influence system DA, but all ME has to offer is some crude and intransparent mechanic of allowing or disallowing persuade or intimidate skills based on your previous choices. But it doesn't take into account the personal stance of NPCs. Not to speak of the fact that they just couldn't know about many of your deeds anyway, making a hypothetical global reputation system just as unrealistic as the RPG points system.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 should approach the whole thing in a more KotOR-esque manner. Instead of having the options greyed out they should always be available, but your success should be determined by your score. If a Paragon character suddenly tries to be a badass, they shouldn't have it locked off... but it should fail if they don't have enough of a Renegade score or enough of a "badass" reputation.

There is problem. The cinematic paragon and intimidate choises are all successful reputation actions. Now it would look really bad when cinematic shows you success action, but in reality you failed. That's why they are blocked, because it's already desided that you can't make sucessful action.

Now You could make then so that it's try action, but that is what the 3 forward choises in both ME's are. Try different ways. The paragon and intimidate action are extra successful action, like extra possiblities based you reputation. They aren't somethign like try, they are done options.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

In ME2 you choises wasn't just what you say, but they affected you reputation as ruthless or sympathetic. What affected how other npcs see you reputation as what kind of fame you have. This builds fear or respect on npcs. My point is that you choises what you made in pass, builds you consequences what happens later. Meaning, some choise can block or open you choises in future.

What are you talking about? There is no such thing in ME 2. There is in an influence system DA, but all ME has to offer is some crude and intransparent mechanic of allowing or disallowing persuade or intimidate skills based on your previous choices. But it doesn't take into account the personal stance of NPCs. Not to speak of the fact that they just couldn't know about many of your deeds anyway, making a hypothetical global reputation system just as unrealistic as the RPG points system.

What You talk, when you do example many paragon actions, it builds you reputation as sympathetic, what opens sometimes you paragon special dialog option to do succesful action based you sympathetc nature, but it also blocks you ability do succesful intimidate options. There are very rare cases when you can do both persuade and intimidate as succesful.

The 3 choises forward as try to do something, is what build you reputation 3 different ways. Ruthless, neutral or sympathetic. Those are consequences what you actions/ choises has. Those are also what affects you future choises.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 mai 2010 - 11:37 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 should approach the whole thing in a more KotOR-esque manner. Instead of having the options greyed out they should always be available, but your success should be determined by your score. If a Paragon character suddenly tries to be a badass, they shouldn't have it locked off... but it should fail if they don't have enough of a Renegade score or enough of a "badass" reputation.

There is problem. The cinematic paragon and intimidate choises are all successful reputation actions. Now it would look really bad when cinematic shows you success action, but in reality you failed. That's why they are blocked, because it's already desided that you can't make sucessful action.

Now You could make then so that it's try action, but that is what the 3 forward choises in both ME's are. Try different ways. The paragon and intimidate action are extra successful action, like extra possiblities based you reputation. They aren't somethign like try, they are done options.

That's actually what I meant: changing them into a try action, as you put it. In KotOR you could often try and make persuades, but if the stat tied to the persuade wasn't high enough you could easily fail, and the following dialogue and cutscene would illustrate this. I think ME should be more like this.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

ME2 should approach the whole thing in a more KotOR-esque manner. Instead of having the options greyed out they should always be available, but your success should be determined by your score. If a Paragon character suddenly tries to be a badass, they shouldn't have it locked off... but it should fail if they don't have enough of a Renegade score or enough of a "badass" reputation.

There is problem. The cinematic paragon and intimidate choises are all successful reputation actions. Now it would look really bad when cinematic shows you success action, but in reality you failed. That's why they are blocked, because it's already desided that you can't make sucessful action.

Now You could make then so that it's try action, but that is what the 3 forward choises in both ME's are. Try different ways. The paragon and intimidate action are extra successful action, like extra possiblities based you reputation. They aren't somethign like try, they are done options.

That's actually what I meant: changing them into a try action, as you put it. In KotOR you could often try and make persuades, but if the stat tied to the persuade wasn't high enough you could easily fail, and the following dialogue and cutscene would illustrate this. I think ME should be more like this.

I ques they could do that but why? It's allready possible in currect dialog system.

3 option behind in weel. (1 paragon success, 1 more information, 1 renegade success)
3 option forward in weel. (1 try persuade, 1 try reason, 1 try intimidate)

What you basicly ask is longer cinematic scenes on tryes and more differences to them. I agree with you. Too many times those choises are all the same, when there should be more differences. How ever, the back dialog choises are totally different, they aren't tryes, they are successful possibilities for players as rewards of reputation and asking more information as just talking.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 mai 2010 - 11:50 .

[Terror_K]

To be honest (and I suggested this shortly after finishing ME1 a couple of times for ME2) I also think that too many outcomes are the same, just with different ways of getting there and that things should be more varied and realistic when it comes to persuades.



For one, a persuade shouldn't automatically mean success. Now... don't get me wrong here, what I mean is not that persuades should be failures, but that they shouldn't always give the player the best outcome in the end, which they currently do. Some persuades should seem to give the player a good result, but come back to bite them in the ass now and then later. I think the closest thing we've got to that is the player letting the asari merc on Samara's loyalty mission go, only to find that she was lying and wasn't as naive as she claimed, but then this is more a case of Paragon choice biting you in the ass than a persuade doing it. In either case, there needs to be more of this because for the most part Paragons seem to get the better outcomes (more people alive, more bonuses, more help, etc.) because they're the nice guys. Renegades either get the same through different scenes or death in their wake.



My point is, persuades need to not always mean ultimate success. Using a persuade to convince a crime lord to give up their life of crime should give paragon points and a good initial outcome, but having a worse person step up in the next game would be a good alternative to put a darker spin on the act (while killing the criminal in a Renegade action would scare off potential newcomers and perhaps the lesser persuade would have the criminal still in the game, but avoiding things like slavery and red sand).



The other thing I think is needed is a more realistic approach to these different persuades. As it stands their mostly either persuading somebody to get the thing you want, or threatening of killing them to get it. The net result is pretty much the same. What we need is to have different people react differently to different approaches.



For example, a krogan bounty hunter, for instance, would react well to a strong, violent approach and would thus likely give up the information you may try to get from him through something like that. If you try and charm him instead, he'll probably think you a pathetic, emotion-driven weakling and you'll have to get your information another way, either through other means or perhaps for once this would be a situation where the Paragon approach leads to battle and the death of the krogan. The player still gets Paragon points, but doesn't resolve the situation quite as they liked, so get a bad actual outcome (from a Paragon's point of view).



Similarly, a player may come across a former slave to batarians and need info from them. Being kind to the person with a charm option will open up the person because they see you as being sympathetic, but an intimidate may close them off and make them run and never talk to you, because they perceive you as a bully, forcing you to find the info another way.



On top of this, if one wants to make previous actions effect things, use things like The Council decision to help drive this. We saw a glimpse of this on The Citadel in ME2, but it could be made a lot deeper. A player who saved The Council should perhaps be more likely to succeed at persuades with aliens, while somebody who put humanity in control and let The Council die may instead have easier persuades with humans.



As long as the player gets the appropriate points, they shouldn't always need succeed at a particular persuade and/or get the best outcome. This adds to replay value by making it so players can't just always hold their sticks/mouse in the upper or lower left every conversation to get instant win, as well as presenting the system in a deeper and more realistic manner. Paragon actions should always get Paragon points, but the outcome shouldn't always be good in the long run, and Renegade actions should always get Renegade points, but now and then actually get a better outcome than the Paragon one. Players should be awarded and judged by their deeds, but said needs should not always go down the path they plan. Not all the persuades should be like this... in fact, most of them shouldn't. But a decent amount... maybe a third or so, could do with an extra dimension like this to add realism, depth and replay value by making sure that not every persuade is instant win.