10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Customizing weapons would definitely be the way to go.  Mods were a good first step.  But could have been taken a lot further.  Instead we got standard, limited,and above all linear upgrades, which was definitely not the most creative path to take.  Inventory was fixed, but more in the way you "fix" your dog or cat.

Mods were a good first step, but so are upgrades. Both need to be taken a step further however. My biggest problem with Mass Effect is that it seems like Bioware thought they could get away with using the standard rpg formula where you give your players 100 different items to sort through. I don't think that really works for something like Mass Effect. For an rpg/tps hybrid, researching unique upgrades or building unique weapons really should have been the road to take from the start. As others have pointed out, we're Commander Shepard, not some poor fool on the run from the law.

I agree with unique upgrades.  The problem with the upgrades in ME 2 was that most of them were  linear upgrades that affected all weapons of the same type.  There was zero customization to them.  If the upgrade was researched, and if you had the weapon, you had the upgrade.  End of story. Boooring!   I couldn't decide that, say, Garrus was going to be a sniper, so he gets sniper rifle bonuses.  Meanwhile Legion's gonna be my tech guy, so he gets omnitool bonuses, and so on. 

[bjdbwea]

But the goal had to be a significant increase in sales. After all, it could be expected that the players who liked ME 1 would buy the successor, so it couldn't really sell less. But if you change the game so much to appeal to the mainstream, of course you expect more sales as a result. Doesn't seem to have happened though.

And that would explain not only the reduced price, but also the curious release of a demo months after release. Showing off how cool the pew-pew and how eager the story is to "get out of the way"?

I for one would be glad if the internal numbers at BioWare/EA would show that the shooter fans didn't really buy the game. Maybe, just maybe, the next game will cater more to the people who are already interested in BioWare games. Or maybe it'll be even more dumbed down to make that strategy work after all.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 15 août 2010 - 10:31 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Also yet again I see some you saying that since you were fans of the company that you have the right to get whatever you want out of a game. You seem to think that you know best and you know precisely what the games vision should be. You seem to feel that your opinions are facts and you never relent on the fact that they really are your opinions. I haven't been a huge fan of Bioware but I was a huge fan of ME 1. I even defended it because I thought it was a good game. It still is a good game I just happen to like ME 2 even more. Does that mean it's a better game? No. I always say that I don't know best but neither do any of you. You feel violated and cheated which is unfair. I remember this sort of thing happening with Devil May Cry 4 and Metal Gear Solid 4. People said they sold out and I greatly enjoy both of those games as well. Almost every high profile known to man has been called garbage and a sell out. Heck I'm one of the few people that likes the Matrix Sequels (both of my parents happened to like them as well).



It's almost like you feel you know what the spirit is. You make up your mind about what you feel the series is about. Then as soon as it alters even a little you call betrayal and call them sell outs. Honestly I don't know how they can keep going since a very vocal number of you constantly insult them without being constructive. Some of you are constructive but at the same time you insult them over and over again. I know if I was making entertainment for people I'd loose a bit of steam seeing people openly insult me.



Besides go back and look at the complaints about ME 1. Some are well worded and reasonable some are complete and utter nonsense. At first Bioware didn't respond but after awhile they talked sparingly with people about what they want. But of course this culture is gearing more towards "I want only what I want and I want it right now!" This applies to both sides of the argument. It's as disheartening to see it from my side as it is to see it from the other.

[bjdbwea]

Please, understand this: ME 2 was marketed and sold as the second part of a trilogy, a successor to ME 1. That's the standard. That's what we had every right to expect. Our vision is what BioWare's vision was, nothing more and nothing less.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...
I'm just sick of seeing all the things I (used to) enjoy constantly being ruined and reimagined and rejigged to suit the mainstream audience...

Now you know how I felt about Jade Empire and, to a similar extent, Mass Effect.
Jade Empire was a personally huge letdown for me because of what Bioware achieved with KotOR: Mechanics that largely needed a bit of polish, but were otherwise well thought-out.
Then bang: They give us a beat-em-up. It didn't matter if it was a seperate IP or not: The same criteria you use to expect ME2 to be a more 'direct sequel' is the same criteria one used to expect straight-up RPGs from Bioware.

I was hoping for ME1 to be more of a 'return to roots' for Bioware: An in-depth RPG with the amount of fun of DoW2's single-player campaign set in ME's universe would've been awesome. Instead we got a shooter with lite and drawn-out RPG mechanics, a 'shootarrpeegee' if you will.

bjdbwea wrote...
Please, understand this: ME 2 was marketed and sold as the second part of a trilogy, a successor to ME 1. That's the standard. That's what we had every right to expect. Our vision is what BioWare's vision was, nothing more and nothing less.

Likewise, understand this: There are plenty of people who have been just as dedicated to Bioware over the years as you have, and they love ME2. Now's the time where we start finding some middle ground.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 août 2010 - 10:56 .

[excentric killa]

bjdbwea wrote...

But the goal had to be a significant increase in sales. After all, it could be expected that the players who liked ME 1 would buy the successor, so it couldn't really sell less. But if you change the game so much to appeal to the mainstream, of course you expect more sales as a result. Doesn't seem to have happened though.

And that would explain not only the reduced price, but also the curious release of a demo months after release. Showing off how cool the pew-pew and how eager the story is to "get out of the way"?

I for one would be glad if the internal numbers at BioWare/EA would show that the shooter fans didn't really buy the game. Maybe, just maybe, the next game will cater more to the people who are already interested in BioWare games. Or maybe it'll be even more dumbed down to make that strategy work after all.

I think you underestimate just how many of the casual shooters fans who bought ME1 hated it,  and as a result didn't buy ME2. Had BioWare not appealed to the shooter fans so much I imagine ME2 would of sold significantly less, and that would of cast shadows over whether of not we'd even get ME3... It's a fact that ME1 turned off way more shooter fans than ME2 turned off RPG fans. And I predict ME3 will be the best selling game in the series which will prove BioWare/EA made a good business decision.

You mightn't like it, and to some extent I don't like it, but if slightly dumbed down RPG elements is the price we have to pay for getting more of this fantastic series, I don't mind. Do you?

As for the dumbing down of ME2, the more I play the game the less I care. I've done 8 playthroughs of ME2 now, and with each playthrough I like it even more. Like a lot of the critics in this thread I was disappointed in the game after my first couple playthroughs aswell, but as I played it more I learned to love it. ME2 has different strengths and weaknesses compared to the first and it took me a while to appreciate that. The best thing about ME1 was the epic storyline. The best thing about ME2 is the characters and combat. I hope and think ME3 will combine the strengths of both games, and I expect it to be fantastic.

[bjdbwea]

excentric killa wrote...

I think you underestimate just how many of the casual shooters fans who bought ME1 hated it, and as a result didn't buy ME2. Had BioWare not appealed to the shooter fans so much I imagine ME2 would of sold significantly less, and that would of cast shadows over whether of not we'd even get ME3... It's a fact that ME1 turned off way more shooter fans than ME2 turned off RPG fans. And I predict ME3 will be the best selling game in the series which will prove BioWare/EA made a good business decision.

That's a fact? Interesting. So surely you can prove it?

excentric killa wrote...

You mightn't like it, and to some extent I don't like it, but if slightly dumbed down RPG elements is the price we have to pay for getting more of this fantastic series, I don't mind. Do you?

The problem is, I didn't find the second part of this series fantastic. If ME 3 is more of the same of what we got in ME 2, I won't buy it.

excentric killa wrote...

I hope and think ME3 will combine the strengths of both games, and I expect it to be fantastic.

On that we agree, with the exception that I won't hold my breath.

[excentric killa]

bjdbwea wrote...

excentric killa wrote...

I think you underestimate just how many of the casual shooters fans who bought ME1 hated it, and as a result didn't buy ME2. Had BioWare not appealed to the shooter fans so much I imagine ME2 would of sold significantly less, and that would of cast shadows over whether of not we'd even get ME3... It's a fact that ME1 turned off way more shooter fans than ME2 turned off RPG fans. And I predict ME3 will be the best selling game in the series which will prove BioWare/EA made a good business decision.

That's a fact? Interesting. So surely you can prove it?

Nope I can't prove it, but I've read enough opinion on many forums to believe it to be a fact. You won't ever believe it because you're desperate to be proven right, and for Bioware to be proven wrong ( that's why you've been in this thread for 7 months). No offense.

Hardcore RPG fans like yourself are a tiny minority, and when it comes to a series like Mass Effect which is a more mainstream RPG,  you are irrelevant to BioWare. Like I said, ME3's sales will prove BioWare were right. But until then, I'll enjoy replaying both ME games and looking foward to ME3. You can replay ME1, bash BioWare all day and threaten not to buy ME3 a million times. Live and be happy brogans! 

[Sparda Stonerule]

bjdbwea wrote...

excentric killa wrote...

I think you underestimate just how many of the casual shooters fans who bought ME1 hated it, and as a result didn't buy ME2. Had BioWare not appealed to the shooter fans so much I imagine ME2 would of sold significantly less, and that would of cast shadows over whether of not we'd even get ME3... It's a fact that ME1 turned off way more shooter fans than ME2 turned off RPG fans. And I predict ME3 will be the best selling game in the series which will prove BioWare/EA made a good business decision.

That's a fact? Interesting. So surely you can prove it?

excentric killa wrote...

You mightn't like it, and to some extent I don't like it, but if slightly dumbed down RPG elements is the price we have to pay for getting more of this fantastic series, I don't mind. Do you?

The problem is, I didn't find the second part of this series fantastic. If ME 3 is more of the same of what we got in ME 2, I won't buy it.

excentric killa wrote...

I hope and think ME3 will combine the strengths of both games, and I expect it to be fantastic.

On that we agree, with the exception that I won't hold my breath.

So I assume you can prove Mass Effect 2 was bad. I assume you can prove that it won't sell more than ME 1 over its entire life cycle. I assume you can prove you know what's best for the series.

I'm sorry but when you ask for proof from someone based on their opinions I find it odd since you yourself have plenty of opinions you can't prove. You can support your opinions sure, but you are not automatically right. Again and again you seem to take your support for your opinions as fact and expect people who like the series to agree with you. I never expected you or any other disappointed fans to change your minds. I just expect you to see where we come from.

I know the game changed. I see where your concerns are based and I see where they come from. Now do you see where we are coming from since we do happen to like it?

[Fhaileas]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

excentric killa wrote...

I think you underestimate just how many of the casual shooters fans who bought ME1 hated it, and as a result didn't buy ME2. Had BioWare not appealed to the shooter fans so much I imagine ME2 would of sold significantly less, and that would of cast shadows over whether of not we'd even get ME3... It's a fact that ME1 turned off way more shooter fans than ME2 turned off RPG fans. And I predict ME3 will be the best selling game in the series which will prove BioWare/EA made a good business decision.

That's a fact? Interesting. So surely you can prove it?

excentric killa wrote...

You mightn't like it, and to some extent I don't like it, but if slightly dumbed down RPG elements is the price we have to pay for getting more of this fantastic series, I don't mind. Do you?

The problem is, I didn't find the second part of this series fantastic. If ME 3 is more of the same of what we got in ME 2, I won't buy it.

excentric killa wrote...

I hope and think ME3 will combine the strengths of both games, and I expect it to be fantastic.

On that we agree, with the exception that I won't hold my breath.

So I assume you can prove Mass Effect 2 was bad. I assume you can prove that it won't sell more than ME 1 over its entire life cycle. I assume you can prove you know what's best for the series.

Only difference is, she never referred to her "opinion" as a fact. 

Nope I can't prove it, but I've read enough opinion on many forums to believe it to be a fact. You won't ever believe it because you're desperate to be proven right, and for Bioware to be proven wrong ( that's why you've been in this thread for 7 months). No offense.

A multitude of like minded opinions does not make an opinion any more or less of an opinion -- and certainly not a fact. Millions of people believe in a divine power, that doesn't make it's existence factual.

[Il Divo]

Fhaileas wrote...

Only difference is, she never referred to her "opinion" as a fact. 

"Yet one thing is for sure: Fallout 3 sold very well. And that proves that there's a profitable market for RPGs even on consoles. No need to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator."

This is her first post on page 340. Calling her opinions 'facts'? Perhaps not. Assuming things as facts which are not in evidence? Well, that might be another story.

We also have this little gem on page 317. In response to using the term "dumbed down":

" Why? Because you feel insulted for still liking the game? You shouldn't. After all, the changes were made precisely because they should appeal to many people.

We could just as well use the term "simplified" to make it sound less derogatory. But if even the developers admit that the game had to be made easier accessible and more "immediate" to introduce shooter fans and other new players to BioWare games, your arguing against the facts becomes somewhat pointless. As I said, you may like it, but why deny the reasons?".


I could dig deeper if I must...

Edit: Or this on page 332:

What you shouldn't do though is deny that the game has changed a lot into that direction. And you can't deny the reasons either. Since even the developers admitted that they had to make the game more "immediate" to "introduce" shooter fans and other non-RPG players "to the RPG genre".

I'm not saying my posting history (especially my posting history) or anyone else's is perfect, but she has contributed her own fair share as well.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 août 2010 - 02:09 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

Il Divo wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

Only difference is, she never referred to her "opinion" as a fact. 

"Yet one thing is for sure: Fallout 3 sold very well. And that proves that there's a profitable market for RPGs even on consoles. No need to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator."

This is her first post on page 340. Calling her opinions 'facts'? Perhaps not. Assuming things as facts which are not in evidence? Well, that might be another story.

We also have this little gem on page 317. In response to using the term "dumbed down":

" Why? Because you feel insulted for still liking the game? You shouldn't. After all, the changes were made precisely because they should appeal to many people.

We could just as well use the term "simplified" to make it sound less derogatory. But if even the developers admit that the game had to be made easier accessible and more "immediate" to introduce shooter fans and other new players to BioWare games, your arguing against the facts becomes somewhat pointless. As I said, you may like it, but why deny the reasons?".


I could dig deeper if I must...

Edit: Or this on page 332:

What you shouldn't do though is deny that the game has changed a lot into that direction. And you can't deny the reasons either. Since even the developers admitted that they had to make the game more "immediate" to "introduce" shooter fans and other non-RPG players "to the RPG genre".

I'm not saying my posting history or anyone else's is perfect, but she has contributed her own fair share as well.

Thank you for that. I agree bjdbwea never actually said "this is a fact". But he did say things like "you can't deny" and "it is obvious". Despite saying things he will never admit that everything in this thread is really a matter of opinion based on perspective. I admit that I'm not inherently right about anything. All I have is my opinion and my view on the matters. What I do not like is people implying that they are right about something. Any game can be viewed as good or bad or anywhere in between. Every change can be determined as good or bad and anything in between. A developer team making any game can be called brilliant or a sell out and everything in between.

I never said I thought the game didn't change. It did that's almost not debatable (but of course there is a debate over that so it is debatable). However I think the story remain fantastic, I fell the sequel was an improvement despite some things being cut. The Mako was completely cut, the inventory was almost cut. You still have selections just at your ship and before missions. So the real time inventory was indeed cut, but you still have different things that you can pick and choose if you so wish. 

Now all of these changes, I felt were for the better. That's my opinion. I know there are varrying opinions out there but no one is really right. As someone said before some long term loyal fans of Bioware loved the game. Some long term fans of Bioware were upset. These things do happen. Heck even some fans of ME 1 wanted nothing to change at all, some wanted features to be improved, and some wanted their complete removal. So with 3 opinions on several features (Mako, elevators, inventory, weapons, armors, mods, exploration, and side quests (possibly more) of course some people would have been upset no matter what they did. Some people just seem to be taking it more personally than others.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

I agree with unique upgrades.  The problem with the upgrades in ME 2 was that most of them were  linear upgrades that affected all weapons of the same type.  There was zero customization to them.  If the upgrade was researched, and if you had the weapon, you had the upgrade.  End of story. Boooring!   I couldn't decide that, say, Garrus was going to be a sniper, so he gets sniper rifle bonuses.  Meanwhile Legion's gonna be my tech guy, so he gets omnitool bonuses, and so on. 

Apologies for the delay on my reponse, good sir.

I do agree with your post. And here's what I'd like to see Bioware do for Mass Effect 3's inventory: burn all their notes on Mass Effect excluding weapon mods. Burn all their notes on Mass Effect 2 excluding upgrades. These are two ideas filled with potential and waiting to be explored. Instead of settling for a bad inventory system (Mass Effect) or a non-existent inventory system (Mass Effect 2), we should settle for nothing less than a good inventory system which fits the rpg/tps style.

I feel that Bioware should have exploited weapon mods, letting us create our own unique weapons, something we could definitely identify as 'our own'. Let us choose the handle, the ammunition, the scope, etc. Provide enough options to grant variety but not enough for clutter. Don't design it in such a way that we replace our weapon every 20 minutes.

With the upgrade system, keep the idea but add far more depth. Let us find/create plans for unique upgrades that extend beyond "Increase biotic damage by 10%". Shepard is now a cyborg! This is a perfect opportunity to explore some cybernetic enhancements to a higher level, imo. Perhaps a touch of Deus Ex is in order. Let Shepard find plans for things like nightvision, perhaps a unique melee upgrade. Something new and innovative.

[Il Divo]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I never said I thought the game didn't change. It did that's almost not debatable (but of course there is a debate over that so it is debatable). However I think the story remain fantastic, I fell the sequel was an improvement despite some things being cut. The Mako was completely cut, the inventory was almost cut. You still have selections just at your ship and before missions. So the real time inventory was indeed cut, but you still have different things that you can pick and choose if you so wish. 

I feel similar. When I first played Mass Effect 2, I didn't notice any of the items that ultimately were cut from Mass Effect. It was only upon completing the game and looking back that I noticed a few things were missing (which I admit I would have liked to see). I don't deny that there are a few plot holes here and there, etc, but the sum experience far outweighed any complaints I ultimately had with those minor holes. On the whole, I think Mass Effect 2 is a worthy sequel. Hopefully Mass Effect 3 draws certain elements from both.

Now all of these changes, I felt were for the better. That's my opinion. I know there are varrying opinions out there but no one is really right. As someone said before some long term loyal fans of Bioware loved the game. Some long term fans of Bioware were upset. These things do happen. Heck even some fans of ME 1 wanted nothing to change at all, some wanted features to be improved, and some wanted their complete removal. So with 3 opinions on several features (Mako, elevators, inventory, weapons, armors, mods, exploration, and side quests (possibly more) of course some people would have been upset no matter what they did. Some people just seem to be taking it more personally than others.

As someone who greatly preferred Morrowind over Oblivion, I certainly understand the perspective. I see where many of the arguments come from. It's even ironic that I find myself now defending the new game (Mass Effect 2) where before I was against it (Oblivion). I wouldn't say that I felt betrayed by Bethesda however.

The problem does become that some fans want innovation while others want what is familiar. Someone loses somewhere somehow, no matter what Bioware would have done with Mass Effect 2. But I did like your comparison with Wind Waker. I personally thought it was a great addition to the Zelda saga (it made me nostalgic for Ocarina) while some found the art direction unsavory/childish. Expectation is another issue, which I've experienced both sides of. I followed Assassin's Creed 2 for months and was disappointed, while I didn't even look at Mass Effect 2 until two days before its launch and consider it among my favorite games. Consequently, having played Mass Effect 2, I also hold Mass Effect 1 in higher regard as a result.

There's just so many variables to consider that it's impossible to identify a definite right or wrong on this matter.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 août 2010 - 02:47 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Fhaileas wrote...



Only difference is, she never referred to her "opinion" as a fact. 

How do you know this for a fact? Haven't you been reading the past posts where he/she has been posting opinions like absolute facts?

Fhaileas wrote...
A multitude of like minded opinions does not make an opinion any more or less of an opinion -- and certainly not a fact. Millions of people believe in a divine power, that doesn't make it's existence factual.

Yes and the small number of people like you and the other clowns here who keep saying "BWA ME2 SUX ARSE!!" doesn't make it an absolute fact, despite what you keep saying.

[Il Divo]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Yes and the small number of people like you and the other clowns here who keep saying "BWA ME2 SUX ARSE!!" doesn't make it an absolute fact, despite what you keep saying.

Perhaps, but let's be fair here. They are certainly entitled to their opinions. I don't think they should be made to stop posting those opinions by any means. I just think everyone should be careful in how we use the phrase 'dumbed down'. That's how calm debate shifts to angry flames.

As a separate note, I don't think the poster you quoted was trying to say that it's a fact that "Mass Effect 2 sucks". He/she was merely commenting on another poster they believed to be claiming something as factual, if what I said makes any sense.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Il Divo wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

I never said I thought the game didn't change. It did that's almost not debatable (but of course there is a debate over that so it is debatable). However I think the story remain fantastic, I fell the sequel was an improvement despite some things being cut. The Mako was completely cut, the inventory was almost cut. You still have selections just at your ship and before missions. So the real time inventory was indeed cut, but you still have different things that you can pick and choose if you so wish. 

I feel similar. When I first played Mass Effect 2, I didn't notice any of the items that ultimately were cut from Mass Effect. It was only upon completing the game and looking back that I noticed a few things were missing (which I admit I would have liked to see). I don't deny that there are a few plot holes here and there, etc, but the sum experience far outweighed any complaints I ultimately had with those minor holes. On the whole, I think Mass Effect 2 is a worthy sequel. Hopefully Mass Effect 3 draws certain elements from both.

Now all of these changes, I felt were for the better. That's my opinion. I know there are varrying opinions out there but no one is really right. As someone said before some long term loyal fans of Bioware loved the game. Some long term fans of Bioware were upset. These things do happen. Heck even some fans of ME 1 wanted nothing to change at all, some wanted features to be improved, and some wanted their complete removal. So with 3 opinions on several features (Mako, elevators, inventory, weapons, armors, mods, exploration, and side quests (possibly more) of course some people would have been upset no matter what they did. Some people just seem to be taking it more personally than others.

As someone who greatly preferred Morrowind over Oblivion, I certainly understand the perspective. I see where many of the arguments come from. It's even ironic that I find myself now defending the new game (Mass Effect 2) where before I was against it (Oblivion). I wouldn't say that I felt betrayed by Bethesda however.

The problem does become that some fans want innovation while others want what is familiar. Someone loses somewhere somehow, no matter what Bioware would have done with Mass Effect 2. But I did like your comparison with Wind Waker. I personally thought it was a great addition to the Zelda saga (it made me nostalgic for Ocarina) while some found the art direction unsavory/childish. Expectation is another issue, which I've experienced both sides of. I followed Assassin's Creed 2 for months and was disappointed, while I didn't even look at Mass Effect 2 until two days before its launch and consider it among my favorite games. Consequently, having played Mass Effect 2, I also hold Mass Effect 1 in higher regard as a result.

There's just so many variables to consider that it's impossible to identify a definite right or wrong on this matter.

It's interesting because while I like Morrowind better I can't really stand to play it. I don't like Oblivion as much but I could easily play it again. I prefer Assassin's Creed 2 over Assassin's Creed, however I could play both games over again and have a great deal of fun. I prefer ME 2 to ME and I found my latest playthrough of ME kind of dull and uninteresting until I hit the story bits. I actually felt the same about ME 2 any time I wasn't recruiting, doing the core story missions, or a loyalty mission I felt it was a bit dull (upon several playthroughs). However I enjoyed my overall time with ME 2 but realize that I wouldn't enjoy ME 2 if it hadn't been for ME. It's these kind of experiences that color your perspective and form your opinions.

Even though me and you are similar in opinions we probably have vast differences in how our brains work and how we experience things. I know it kind of sucks that no matter what someone is going to be upset with any game ever made. I guess that's the price we pay for having actual individuality.

Once again I would never dare call any of you wrong. You do word your concerns well and I do hope Bioware makes a superb third game for this series. You should just keep in mind that there are plenty of people who were completely satisfied with ME 2.

[SithLordExarKun]

Il Divo wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Yes and the small number of people like you and the other clowns here who keep saying "BWA ME2 SUX ARSE!!" doesn't make it an absolute fact, despite what you keep saying.

Perhaps, but let's be fair here. They are certainly entitled to their opinions. I don't think they should be made to stop posting those opinions by any means. I just think everyone should be careful in how we use the phrase 'dumbed down'. That's how calm debate shifts to angry flames.

As a separate note, I don't think the poster you quoted was trying to say that it's a fact that "Mass Effect 2 sucks". He/she was merely commenting on another poster they believed to be claiming something as factual, if what I said makes any sense.

If people want to post their opinions, its fine. What seems annoying is passing ones opinion as an absolute fact and then telling other people not to treat their opinions as facts, thats utter hypocrisy.

And yes, that poster i was quoting on many occasions tried to pass off ME2 as a crap game as a fact, and then subsequently tries to tell people their opinions aren't valid.

[ArchDemonXIII]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

I agree with unique upgrades.  The problem with the upgrades in ME 2 was that most of them were  linear upgrades that affected all weapons of the same type.  There was zero customization to them.  If the upgrade was researched, and if you had the weapon, you had the upgrade.  End of story. Boooring!   I couldn't decide that, say, Garrus was going to be a sniper, so he gets sniper rifle bonuses.  Meanwhile Legion's gonna be my tech guy, so he gets omnitool bonuses, and so on. 

Apologies for the delay on my reponse, good sir.

I do agree with your post. And here's what I'd like to see Bioware do for Mass Effect 3's inventory: burn all their notes on Mass Effect excluding weapon mods. Burn all their notes on Mass Effect 2 excluding upgrades. These are two ideas filled with potential and waiting to be explored. Instead of settling for a bad inventory system (Mass Effect) or a non-existent inventory system (Mass Effect 2), we should settle for nothing less than a good inventory system which fits the rpg/tps style.

I feel that Bioware should have exploited weapon mods, letting us create our own unique weapons, something we could definitely identify as 'our own'. Let us choose the handle, the ammunition, the scope, etc. Provide enough options to grant variety but not enough for clutter. Don't design it in such a way that we replace our weapon every 20 minutes.

With the upgrade system, keep the idea but add far more depth. Let us find/create plans for unique upgrades that extend beyond "Increase biotic damage by 10%". Shepard is now a cyborg! This is a perfect opportunity to explore some cybernetic enhancements to a higher level, imo. Perhaps a touch of Deus Ex is in order. Let Shepard find plans for things like nightvision, perhaps a unique melee upgrade. Something new and innovative.

Those are really good ideas. My only concern is if they bring customizable weapons, you should only be able to mod them at weapons lockers. I like the tactical aspect of having to bring  the right weapon for the job, just like you need to pick the right allies. Otherwise it ends up like Crysis where it has an awesome set of weapon mods, but since you can mod on the fly, it feels less like a custom weapon and more like a standard weapon with a lot of parts. Plus i think not bing able to switchp loadouts on the fly gives you reason to tackle a mission differently on subsequent playthroughs.

[Terror_K]

iakus wrote...

Inventory was fixed, but more in the way you "fix" your dog or cat.

I just gotta say, this has to be the best line I've seen on these forums to summarise the issue. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

Il Divo wrote...

Mods were a good first step, but so are upgrades. Both need to be taken a step further however. My biggest
problem with Mass Effect is that it seems like Bioware thought they could get away with using the standard rpg formula where you give your players 100 different items to sort through. I don't think that really works for something like Mass Effect. For an rpg/tps hybrid, researching unique upgrades or building unique weapons really should have been the road to take from the start. As others have pointed out, we're Commander Shepard, not some poor fool on the run from the law.

It's a hard thing to do when you're established as a badass from the start rather than being a peon who grows, and that's also the problem many had with the stat-based weapon skills. It personally didn't bother me
because I can seperate gameplay mechanics from narrative, and if you started off completely skilled up and had all the best gear from the start there'd be nowhere to grow, which would kind of defeat one of the main purposes of playing an RPG.

To me things like Collectors dropping thermal clips, squaddies running around in no protection and fighting in exposed space and hazardous environments with only a breather on, etc. ruins any immersion and sense of accurate realism far more than these issues, because to me they're purely gameplay related, just like gaining XP and investing in skill points overall is. That's not to say I don't understand the problem others have with these things, but that, personally, it's something I can easily ignore. Because I'd rather have some RPG progression that doesn't make much sense than have no progression just to fit what's been established.

Researching was definitely too linear, and came without any real trade-offs, while at least the weapon mods of ME1 forced you to pick and choose a little and allowed a little customisation of your weapons. I'm sure some will
say that the mods had barely any effect and that most people modded their guns the same, but I personally disagree, and in either case it's still more customisation than ME2 had, and another case where the
concept is fine and with a few more potent mods that made more of a difference it could be something really special.

I have to admit that in a few cases researching did solve the "best gear" issue in a few cases: finding and scanning the Collector weapons and the gun on Kasumi's mission for instance make sense as being weapons Shepard wouldn't have access to by default, but I think that if you let this type of thing rule your game you're going to end up with a very limited form of progression and/or a lot of forced situations for Shepard to come across something unique (how many times can the weapon in question be a prototype, rare collectable or unseen alien technology before it becomes trite?).

Modifié par Terror_K, 16 août 2010 - 04:28 .

[Lumikki]

Character progression for sake of it, just to have it, even when it doesn't make any sense to have it, isn't really good solution.



In DAO, where you starts as weak "student" and grow while playing to become strong. It makes perfect sense to have it, from mouse to God progression. In Mass Effect serie where main character is the best elitis solder in human race have, it doesn't really make any sense to make him/her to mouse so that we can become God later.. Theme is different. I don't want gameplay what is just there sake of it self, when it doens't fit in story or where game take a place. Not every game has to have strong linear character progression.



Does Lara Croft in Tomb raiders get stronger. Does it make it bad game?



My point is that not every game has to follow same traditional table board RPG design. There are games where is some character progression, but it's more parallel than linear. Like you are strong from start, but you learn new talents while playing. These talents doesn't really make you much stronger, but they open new possiblities for players to play different ways.

[ArchDemonXIII]

Lumikki wrote...

Character progression for sake of it, just to have it, even when it doesn't make any sense to have it, isn't really good solution.

In DAO, where you starts as weak "student" and grow while playing to become strong. It makes perfect sense to have it, from mouse to God progression. In Mass Effect serie where main character is the best elitis solder in human race have, it doesn't really make any sense to make him/her to mouse so that we can become God later.. Theme is different. I don't want gameplay what is just there sake of it self, when it doens't fit in story or where game take a place. Not every game has to have strong linear character progression.

Does Lara Croft in Tomb raiders get stronger. Does it make it bad game?

My point is that not every game has to follow same traditional table board RPG design. There are games where is some character progression, but it's more parallel than linear. Like you are strong from start, but you learn new talents while playing. These talents doesn't really make you much stronger, but they open new possiblities for players to play different ways.

 

Well put. That always kind of bugged me. Commander Shepard, hero of the skyllian blitz, who has to struggle with a 3 on 2 outside a bar.....

 To me, NG+ with lvl 60 Shep with full charm/intimidate was the "canon" playthrough. Too bad NG+ in ME2 is a handicap.

[CatatonicMan]

Lumikki wrote...

My point is that not every game has to follow same traditional table board RPG design. There are games where is some character progression, but it's more parallel than linear. Like you are strong from start, but you learn new talents while playing. These talents doesn't really make you much stronger, but they open new possiblities for players to play different ways.

Yes, progression isn't a necessity. RPGs, however, generally require progression; it's one of the standard features that pervades the genre. It's fine to take out progression, but calling it an RPG after you do seems a bit like trying to have your cake and eat it too.

As an interesting note, I think ME2 would actually be better classified as a TPS/Adventure game.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Character progression for sake of it, just to have it, even when it doesn't make any sense to have it, isn't really good solution.

In DAO, where you starts as weak "student" and grow while playing to become strong. It makes perfect sense to have it, from mouse to God progression. In Mass Effect serie where main character is the best elitis solder in human race have, it doesn't really make any sense to make him/her to mouse so that we can become God later.. Theme is different. I don't want gameplay what is just there sake of it self, when it doens't fit in story or where game take a place. Not every game has to have strong linear character progression.

Does Lara Croft in Tomb raiders get stronger. Does it make it bad game?

My point is that not every game has to follow same traditional table board RPG design. There are games where is some character progression, but it's more parallel than linear. Like you are strong from start, but you learn new talents while playing. These talents doesn't really make you much stronger, but they open new possiblities for players to play different ways.

I still think an RPG needs a decent amount of character progression. The Lara Croft example doesn't really apply because that's purely an action/puzzle game and not an RPG, and thus the character isn't expected to progress. Take way the progression and you take away the game being an RPG and just turn it into a story-based shooter with an upgrade system.

I don't terribly mind that ME2 did away with weapons skill progression, even though I do feel the game is a little shallower for it and could have got it across in a better way (though even if they did you'd still have that whole realism issue that bothers some people). I personally don't see how people can have a problem with that and not have a problem with a player character going from a inept gumby to a God over the space of a few weeks or months in a game while the rest of the characters around them (beyond their party ones) stay pretty much the same. How is becoming a master of something in such a short time frame any more realistic than Shepard being less than great at the start despite his/her reputation? Both make just as much sense as each other, yet one is fine and the other is not.

The thing is, if you become too fussy and read too much into it beyond the point that it's a gameplay mechanic then you'll eventually start limiting the game too much and have practically nowhere to go. It's like the whole Cortosis thing with Star Wars and KotOR: the material can't really work like it does in KotOR (i.e. it's too rare, brittle and doesn't quite work how its depicted), but it does because it needs to for the gameplay mechanic to work and to bring balance to things, otherwise lightsabres would be too uber.

I definitely think that, in either case, if you're not going to alllow decent progression for Shepard somehow you do need to allow for progression through his/her items in some fashion. If there's no real progression in an RPG, there's little point in making the game one.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Apologies for the delay on my reponse, good sir.

I do agree with your post. And here's what I'd like to see Bioware do for Mass Effect 3's inventory: burn all their notes on Mass Effect excluding weapon mods. Burn all their notes on Mass Effect 2 excluding upgrades. These are two ideas filled with potential and waiting to be explored. Instead of settling for a bad inventory system (Mass Effect) or a non-existent inventory system (Mass Effect 2), we should settle for nothing less than a good inventory system which fits the rpg/tps style.

I feel that Bioware should have exploited weapon mods, letting us create our own unique weapons, something we could definitely identify as 'our own'. Let us choose the handle, the ammunition, the scope, etc. Provide enough options to grant variety but not enough for clutter. Don't design it in such a way that we replace our weapon every 20 minutes.

With the upgrade system, keep the idea but add far more depth. Let us find/create plans for unique upgrades that extend beyond "Increase biotic damage by 10%". Shepard is now a cyborg! This is a perfect opportunity to explore some cybernetic enhancements to a higher level, imo. Perhaps a touch of Deus Ex is in order. Let Shepard find plans for things like nightvision, perhaps a unique melee upgrade. Something new and innovative.

Thank you for not assuming I want Mass Effect 1 inventory just because i dislike Mass Effect 2's inventory

I've said it several times before, but Alpha Protocol, whatever faults it may have,  it has an excellent inventory system that I would not mind if Bioware stole from shamelessly.  Maybe half a dozen types of weapons from each category. Each weapon had four mod slots (barrel, magazine, sight, and "accessory") and three types of ammo for each gun (one normal and two "special" ammo types) Sounds complicated, but it's quite elegant.  And most mods have a tradeoff.

Augmenting Shepard with cybernetics is an interesting idea.  particularly if, like Deus Ex, the choice is permanent.  Taken a step further, why not augment the entire squad via armor?  ME 1 mentioned things like "hardsuit computers" and such.  Why not go further with researchable improvements?  Krogans like to charge, so research/purchase something like power gauntlets to increase melee damage for Grunt (or someone else you think may be in melee a lot).  Upgraded hardsuit processors to reduce the cooldown for engineering abilities for Tali.  Specific upgrades for that squadmate and you can only do a limited number of upgrades.  Armor doesn't have to be just about "increases shield strength by X%" or "health by Y%"

Hmm, do this right and it could replace leveling altogether...