10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Having consequences from many different choise player does is fine as long player understand what choises are made. Of course some choises can also surprice player, like above sayed, bite in ass. How ever one thing will not be good. Random success in persuade, because player is able to save game. Oh, I failed, lets reload and try again. So, consequences are fine, but random change are not. Also allways success isn't good, same reason why ablity save and reload makes it bad. How ever, when it's based past choises, it's really hard to undo and player just has to deal with it.

Sometimes I hope they just hide hole paragon/renegade system, so that players would be playing the game and making choises without some numbers or bars. But, we play single player game, who the hell I'm telling others how to someone likes they game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 mai 2010 - 02:59 .

[Lumikki]

Oblarg wrote...

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

Yes. In Mass Effect case. Why?

Because it requires handeling items as induvidual base. What I mean?

When you get random loot, then what is stoping you get same items multible times or items what you have no use?

Notting, but the difference here is how it's handled. If You have inventory system it means every items goes allways in you inventory. Player has to handle them all. You can create even very complex inventory system to make it easyer, but the main problem is same. You get junk items and same items multible times. You can allways stack same items, but what about those items what has become useless. They just lay down on you inventory untill You sell them or destroy. In the end every item is induvidual you need to personaly handle every one of them and assay them to every character you have as induvidual base.

How ever, if we start looking items more like technology arrivements what are added to some library system. Meaning You don't really have to have induvidual items, but those items provides for you certain technology level.  Like if You have one, you can have as many of them you like. More like you have reasearch new technology what you can now use.

So when every different item is stored only ones and new version allways replace older one. This means if You find new item, it will be added you library. If You get weapon Alpha 1.3 when last weapon you got was weapon alpa 1.2, then 1.3 replace the old one. No point to keep old same weapon, when better exist. Of cause different weapons aren't newer versions.

So having inventory old fachion way means player has to keep track all the induvidual stuff, what isn't really necessary. You can build automatic system what keep you items in order and it doesn't require inventory system. More like library or research system. Meaning when player is choosing weapon, then systems only shows all different weapons player can choose and newest version, because old doesn't even exist anymore in you system.

Can't this be done with inventory system too as improve it? Sure, but in the end it's not anymore real inventory system, it starts to look system what ME2 has.

Why then some way it feeled that ME1 was better? Because ME1 had alot of more choises than ME2 have. It's not the inventory what was better, it's the amount of choises, modification and customation what was better. Inventory system it self was nightmare, compared what ME2 has.

Then how game could hanle loot if there can't be old and same items what is allready in library? Simple make them to general junk items for player to sell as they value based or turn them directly to money.

"You found junk worth of 2000"  Basicly game checked that you allready had the items in library or better one.
"You found new technology what can improve you sniple rifle accuracy". Added you library or research.

I hope you see the difference?

No more handeling induvidual items, but still have same amount of customation. What about sellign and buying?

If junk items aren't changed directly to money, then player can have oppornity sell them when they have opportonity buy items too.  Of course sellign would be pointless extra action, but for roleplaying impression it could be nice one. Player doens't really need to know what those junks where, but how much they are worth as total.

Modifié par Lumikki, 29 mai 2010 - 04:58 .

[bjdbwea]

Why was the inventory in ME 1 bad? Because it was already dumbed down! A proper inventory in a PC game doesn't automatically add items to your inventory, but allows you to pick up what you want. It also enforces an item or weight limit, so that you can't carry so much stuff in the first place. And of course it allows you to drop what you don't need. But because these simple concepts apparently can't be adapted to console controls and hardware, the inventory was like it was in ME 1. Of course people were unhappy with it. But instead of trying to find ways of doing a proper inventory, it was cut out altogether. And that's not right.

You're right though, choices, modification and customization are the important things. If you call it inventory or anything else is unimportant. Unfortunately ME 2 didn't offer much in that regard. Even though it seems easy enough to produce weapons and armor, considering all the DLCs. That's not right either, to deliberately offer little choices, only to make the DLC items look more appealing.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 29 mai 2010 - 05:03 .

[Mangalores]

RockingKraut wrote...

I thought both games were both good in their own way.

I've never been phased by sequels like many have. Call me easy but as a writer who saves his chapters in seperate word documents, remembering every little detail from the last chapter to the next is tough. I've had to go through 3 different rough drafts of my story altogether because of how I write. I also find it annoying how sequels are rated just because of the previous installements. I call it the "10 year old" effect, originally based on Star Wars fans that loved the original Trilogy but hated the second trilogy. Its not really the fact that one is better than the other, its the fact that the one before hand set the stage so we expect the same from the next one even though the stage is already set, you're not gonna reset it. Case and point, I loved Resistance 2's storyline, however I'm one of few as a majority didn't like it. I also enjoyed Half Life:Blue Shift while many Half Life fans were dissappointed with it. I may just be a fish out of water, but its always good to get a different perspective.

Sorry, but sequels are rated by their precedessors because they use their fame as a marketing instrument. As such they either must build well on their precedessors or be capable to reinvent the franchise so they stand on their own (Aliens did that, keeping in the franchise but going off into an entirely different direction of what they were about). Didn't play Half Life for some reason (was not into ego shooters back then) but the HL sequels to HL1 were overall very successful even though they simply retold the very same story from the perspective of another character so the problem seems to lay with Blue Shift and not the concept.

While sequels are under great scrunity the lapses in e.g. Star Wars concerning storytelling are mindboggling and a real drop if not breakdown in basic story telling quality. Only saving grace is that it seems George Lucas retargeted from young adults/teenagers to kids.

I don't think ME2 is like that in quality degradation but it is akind to Matrix 2 in trying to be cooler than ME1 but instead of looking at the greater story qualities of ME1 and build on that they used the "gimmick approach" aka upped indivdidual elements which they thought worked in ME1 and increased these exponentially to make the movie/game more stylish and broaden the audience and with less care to fit it in storywise aka balance it.  The danger of this is that this increases the risk of breaching the suspension because of overexposure and your brain might suddenly trigger and go: "Huh?!"

The original Mass Effect was a light good triumphs over evil storyline(within restraints) but as Bioware stated during development off Mass Effect 2, the sequel was going to be much darker than the first.

Mass Effect 2 is only superficially darker. Slasher movies are supposedly darker than Thrillers concerning subject matter but you laugh alot more in the former. That is kinda the problem if you go overboard with being "cooler" than the original and ending up more obvious cliche thanks to it...

And human characters are based off of human beings and in Jack's case...their are many people just like her...Her architype is one of the most heavily used. I'm not saying its good, in fact I hate Jack, but she reminds me of a friend of mine who is exactly like her...except she wants to use vampire puppies to take over the world.

I wouldn't say this archetype is that heavily used given prevalent heroine and female character stereotypes even in the west, but she was one of the more emotional characters you could actual see where she was coming from and why she was as screwed up as she was. ME2 wasn't bad in their ensemble cast in this though they obviously filled all other stereotypes as well but some quite memorable.

Gameplay is more of an opinion sort of thing, however I prefer the second since the first one really was meant to have that similar cover mechanic, but they didn't impliment it very well.

Why I try to disconnect from most of the gameplay. I have problems where gameplay infringed on story, canon or concept though though I consider that minor to the actual storytelling. I found the console cover mechanic clunky, too, though. In so far that it led to shephard latching on to any nearby vertical surface, even if it was on the wrong side of the firefight! That was annoying if you just wanted to cut a corner to stay in cover as long as possible. It's minor though.

[tonnactus]

Jebel Krong wrote...


yet when devs DO change things, like adding more immersive and far superior combat in mass effect 2,

Superior?Did the enemies become smarter?
They are much dumber then in the first game.Krogans for example use shotguns at all ranges.
In the first game they could use assault rifles...
Did they have more abilites and use them more often? No.
The Mass Effect combat has two parts: Shooting and powers.At the last part enemies fail horrible.
Biotics only use warp.Tech enemies only use the drone and incinerate.

[Mayson02]

bjdbwea wrote...

Why was the inventory in ME 1 bad? Because it was already dumbed down! A proper inventory in a PC game doesn't automatically add items to your inventory, but allows you to pick up what you want. It also enforces an item or weight limit, so that you can't carry so much stuff in the first place. And of course it allows you to drop what you don't need. But because these simple concepts apparently can't be adapted to console controls and hardware, the inventory was like it was in ME 1. Of course people were unhappy with it. But instead of trying to find ways of doing a proper inventory, it was cut out altogether. And that's not right.

You're right though, choices, modification and customization are the important things. If you call it inventory or anything else is unimportant. Unfortunately ME 2 didn't offer much in that regard. Even though it seems easy enough to produce weapons and armor, considering all the DLCs. That's not right either, to deliberately offer little choices, only to make the DLC items look more appealing.

Is there a technical reason why you can't have an inventory like they had in the old Baldur's Gate games (i. e. Move the cursor around and drag and drop items).   That used to be the staple as far as inventories were concerned.  

If they added an inventory system like that and allowed respawning enemies on various planets they could get people to play ME3 for years(especially since there seems to be talk of a multiplayer option).  It seemed to work for Diablo.

Modifié par Mayson02, 29 mai 2010 - 10:20 .

[tonnactus]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
 Its faults when shown side by side to ME 2 are extremely noticable.  ME 2 wins by default.  Now ME 2 may be buggy in some places, but when compared to KOTOR, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights it feels like a more professional product than those games.

Okay,lets look:
Squadmembers never remember the weapons they should use after i load a savegame.
Long time where was a problem with the squad ammo and/or that teammates use their inefficient ammo version instead the ammo you want them to use.

Shield upgrades only affect Mordin and Shepardt.(the other teammates only after you save and reload the game)

Charge dont work on the collector platforms.Charge sometimes dont work even when you have a clear sight to the enemy.

Squadmates get stuck inside boxes.(Reaper Iff)

Enemys standing in the air sometimes like shepardt and squadmates.

Some dialogs like with shiala and shepardt on the citadel were bugged/wrong.

Polished means more then a stable framerate...

Modifié par tonnactus, 29 mai 2010 - 10:07 .

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...


Anyway, what's this ME1 was non-linear crap?

Just one example:You dont have to fight against the kaira stirling if you give anoleis the evidence that the hanar is a smuggler.You dont have to fight against Captain Ventralis.

You have different paths in Virmire and the citadel battle. Mass Effect dont have enough of this.Mass Effect have nothing like this.

Thanes recruitment could be such an nice possibility for something like this.Thrown away for "the badass cutscene".

[tonnactus]

MikeFL25 wrote...


I would like to preface by saying that I LOVE Mass Effect 2 and the Mass Effect series as a whole. I thought the developers perfected the gameplay in ME2 and I felt the level-up system was more immediately rewarding than the minute improvements in ME1.

What?How they are more rewarding.Nothing gets improved besides duration and damage,and at rank 4 they are two possibilities:Area version or give a power more strenght.The difference in powers in MAss Effect was bigger.Ai-hacking rank 1:Geth troopers,snipers,rocket troopers. Rank 2(advanced): Destroyer and shock troopers.Rank 3(master): Juggernauts and armatures.

[tonnactus]

Ariella wrote...


Your objection seems to be that even the barest hint of combat destroys an RPG, or at least that's what you imply. I noticed NO difference between the amount of combat in ME 1's and ME 2's main storylines. And while I felt that ME 1 did a better job dealing with the transitional moments between action and non-action scenes giving it a more cinematic feel, I never saw any real difference in type and amount of combat.

Not even in the type? Something like crowd control doesnt exist in this game anymore.(at least in the harder difficulties)

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...
t entirely conveyed in text boxes? Need I remind you of the vision Shepherd has on one world which is just 3 massive text boxes?

Helena Blake.Toombs.Doctor Kyle.Bringing Down the Sky.The biotics that capture the politician.

The crazy biotic that murders the whole crew of one ship.

[tonnactus]

mashavasilec wrote...

 Maybe I'm missing something, but as far as I remember, combat in ME1 was like "Put up barrier-Lift-Shoot in the general direction od the enemy-Repeat". ME2 had me turn  my brain on eventually, so that seems more like fabled "RPG system" to me. despite the lack of 10000 skills.
 

And what is it now? Enemy have shields.Overload him and shoot him to death.Enemy has armor.Use incinerate and shoot him to death.Enemy has barrier:Use warp/reave and shoot him to death.

Just like paper,scissors and rock. No alternatives.Booorrring.


Yes,you could lift an enemy,but also  could throw or stasis him.Sabotage his weapons.Neuralshock.Damp his biotic abilities.Hack them despite "protection".(how in the hell shields should protect against hacking/the geth communicate with each other even during combat)

[uberdowzen]

bjdbwea wrote...

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

Yes. All of them.

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

Just one example:You dont have to fight against the kaira stirling if you give anoleis the evidence that the hanar is a smuggler.You dont have to fight against Captain Ventralis.

You have different paths in Virmire and the citadel battle. Mass Effect dont have enough of this.Mass Effect have nothing like this.

Thanes recruitment could be such an nice possibility for something like this.Thrown away for "the badass cutscene".

We've already dismissed the "seperate path" on the citadel. I'll give you there are two different paths on Virmire. We're talking more about non-linearity of the story here though. Both ME games are fairly linear.

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

Helena Blake.Toombs.Doctor Kyle.Bringing Down the Sky.The biotics that capture the politician.

The crazy biotic that murders the whole crew of one ship.

Missed. The. Point. I was just pointing out that saying that the tone of ME2 was ruined by having emails is ridculous because many of the UCWs were told with text boxes.

[tonnactus]

brfritos wrote...

I understand why Bioware make this changes, since now you really are dependable of your squad, no class have the skills to beat any enemy in the game, including using weapons.
Even the Sentinel, wich have powers to strip and kill any type of defense isn't omniscent now, since the lack of combat skills, wich make his weapons the worse to use (in ME1 he could upgrade his weapons and make them very good, so this was minimized).

??
"Who need squadmates"?


Ah yes, some of their ammo powers could be usefull(Zaeeds disruptor of course).With double cooldown in most cases,a 30 s cooldown in the case of combat drones,thats the most usefull thing they could deliver.

[bjdbwea]

uberdowzen wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

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

Yes. All of them.

Of course you would say that.

In truth - and even though I'm as much pro ME 1 as you are pro ME 2, I can admit it - neither game is really difficult. All that talk about strategies, it only matters at the beginning of ME 1, and never in ME 2. Because at least in the beginning of ME 1, you don't have the powers, nor the weapon proficiencies. You are however a perfect shot in ME 2 right from waking up after two years (yeah, very realistic), so even on the highest difficulty the only real challenge comes from the mediocre controls. Once you've mastered those, it's just running from pew-pew to pew-pew. With a few exceptions like the end of the Tali mission that require at least a bit of planning. Happens way too infrequent though.

That said, I for one couldn't care less about how challenging or diverse combat is. It's not the reason I buy or don't buy the Mass Effect games. My main interests are the writing and story. That the game is so weak in these regards, is its main problem.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 30 mai 2010 - 12:15 .

[tonnactus]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

[quote]Oblarg wrote...

2.  Power UsageYou seem to be forgetting that most enemies don't have armor or shields, just tougher enemies who logically should be able to resist your attacks.

[/quote]

On hardcore and insanity even varren have armor.And no,even bosses should be affected,why not?

To understand what nonsense this so called protection system is(not only by the lore),just imagine, a mage have to destroy the armor of a warrior with a sword and only after that he/she could use their spell?

Sound stupid? It is stupid.That bosses take less damage frpm biotics make sense.That they are nearly unaffected doesnt make any sense.

And even then its inconsequent ,why harbinger and a scion could be stopped by a singularity,but not geth primes(but is affected by melee,lol) or a heavy mech? Harbinger is the main boss, you know?

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...


Getting hacking and decryption also gave you combat skills so you pretty much had to get them anyway. First Aid is a good example even though you don't really need it because of armor mods. What do you consider to be the support classes in ME1? 

Sentinel and engineer could choose the medic specialisation and were support classes.
And this works,because squadmates didnt do 50 percent less damage with weapons in the first game

I guess they overreacted since in ME1 you were a biotic god keeping enemies in neverending singularities.

Biotics couldnt be goods if Mass Effect just have more tech enemies that could damp your abilites and/or enemy biotics could do the same to shepardt.(More geth primes)

Diversity in enemy groups is the right solution for this. Making most biotics talents useless is just as cheap as to remove an inventory rather then make it better.

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, it felt awesome. And unbalanced and unchalleging.

Well,at least rockets and snipers could still kill you.
Rockets in MAss Effect 2.Sit in cover for 2 seconds.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...


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

Try an engineer.Without barrier or any biotic power.
Mass Effect is not that easy without barrier or immunity.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

Why was the inventory in ME 1 bad? Because it was already dumbed down! A proper inventory in a PC game doesn't automatically add items to your inventory, but allows you to pick up what you want. It also enforces an item or weight limit, so that you can't carry so much stuff in the first place. And of course it allows you to drop what you don't need. But because these simple concepts apparently can't be adapted to console controls and hardware,.

This isnt the fault of console controls or hardware.
Oblivion doesnt have random loot on the console and it wasnt forced in the inventory of the player.

Modifié par tonnactus, 30 mai 2010 - 12:49 .

[tonnactus]

uberdowzen wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

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

Yes. All of them.

Really? I nearly fall asleep as an engineer with dominate on insanity.

[Ecael]

tonnactus wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...


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

Try an engineer.Without barrier or any biotic power.
Mass Effect is not that easy without barrier or immunity.

Except Ashley and Wrex will always have Immunity and/or Barrier, and the game gets easier as Energized Plating and the last level of Tungsten/Shredder Ammo starts dropping.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are both easy after the first playthrough.

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

This isnt the fault of console controls or hardware.
Oblivion doesnt have random loot on the console and it wasnt forced in the inventory of the player.

Fair enough, but these dumbed down inventory systems started with JE, BioWare's first console RPG. It has to have something to do with the inferior input system, or the limited hardware of the consoles. Or is it the audience? But as you said, Oblivion had a proper inventory, Fallout 3 too. They even presented a proper combination of RPG and action combat. And both apparently sold well on consoles too, plus the DLCs were successful too. So if there's a significant number of console players who can appreciate proper RPG elements and combat beyond pew-pew, then why did BioWare/EA feel the need to dumb the game down so much in the first place?