10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Xeranx]

Orchomene wrote...

Cost of video game : consider 100 people paid 40k $ (social charges and taxes included) a year working for a year => 4M $ for a 100 Men-year (My) game (that can be 20 people
during 5 years).
You have to consider devs, designers, writers, professional testers, actors, management, marketing.
Then, you add the advertisements which should rationally be not more than a tenth of the total cost, but I don't know for sure for blockbusters.

Thanks.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

I will mention one thing, me1 took longer because so many of the parts were created from scratch, I am near 100% certain there was alot of recycling in me2 from the first game.

Not as much as there could have been. If you think about it, making a real continuation would even have saved them a significant amount of time. They could have reused the level design of the Normandy and the Citadel at least. Everyone would have understood why these locations didn't change. Just fill them with new life, of course. They could also have maintained well-liked characters, especially the companions of course. And a continuation of the story, without the unnecessary introduction of the collectors and Cerberus, would have saved time as well.

Working for cerberus could have make the game interesting.But not in the way it was executed in Mass Effect 2.
Iakus described it.After some years the council/alliance wouldnt believe shepardt anymore and he/she has to search
new partners for that,with the necessary "evil" and to convince his old partners.(some could still even leave because of that)

[brfritos]

bjdbwea wrote...

I think the complaints were just convenient excuses to implement changes that were planned anyway. And if not, then the reaction to complaints is not to improve it, but to cut a feature out completely? It goes without saying that this is not acceptable for a successor, especially not from a renowned developer such as BioWare.

I agree completely that ME2 is not a worthy sucessor to ME1, but there are things that worry me more than this.
It seems that Bioware will do the same thing they did with ME2 to DA2.

And they are planning Witcher 2, remember that, so our future is not so bright.

You can call me "pure" or "innocent", but I hope that's no the case, I wish it's like "Bioware tried something new and didn't worked out".
It's a wish, keep that in mind. 

If you want my honesty, I'm waiting with anxiety for Fallout New Vegas, not LOtSB.
I'm not a big fan of Fallout 3, but from what I've seem, there are a lot of interesting ideas on this game, more than in FO3.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

People understand, they simply don't agree. RPGs have been doing inventory for years without many issues, so the so-called "solution" of elimination isn't a valid excuse. It's not like having an inventory system is automatically fail and just because ME1's system didn't quite work doesn't mean ME2 needs to use it or that all attempts result in failure. Again, it's not a solution, it's an alternative option. Their "solution" in this case is about as much a solution to the issue of my car's tire going flat being "get rid of the car" or "remove the wheels entirely." Well, of course I can't get a flat tire if I don't have any wheels at all now, can I? But that's hardly a real solution to the problem. How about to solve my worry about my ME2 lithographs possibly being stolen I just burn them all? That certainly would prevent that now, wouldn't it?

Can you say some game where they had good variety and induvidual item inventory system what actually worked?

The point is, getting rid of the problem is not a solution.

Sometimes it is. How ever, stop saying that there is "some" other solution, show us the other solution.

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

Can you say some game where they had good variety and induvidual item inventory system what actually worked?

BG 2, NWN, Deus Ex, Fallout 3. It's not exactly rocket science: Limit the amount of items and/or the weight that the player character can carry. But that's the biggest irony in the matter: The inventory in ME 1 was clunky because it was already dumbed down and did not enforce the mentioned "complicated" restrictions. So the solution to the problem created through dumbing down, is even more dumbing down?

Another problem are of course the clunky console controls that seem to make browsing through an inventory somewhat of a problem. But again, this is BioWare - if you're so keen on consoles now, then at least invest the effort to make it work properly.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 31 août 2010 - 06:15 .

[Mister Mida]

brfritos wrote...

And they are planning Witcher 2, remember that, so our future is not so bright.

The Witcher games are made by CD Projekt Red. They just use one of Bioware's engines.

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Can you say some game where they had good variety and induvidual item inventory system what actually worked?

BG 2, NWN, Deus Ex, Fallout 3. It's not exactly rocket science: Limit the amount of items and/or the weight that the player character can carry.

But the amount of items was limited in Mass Effect.(150 ) All they had to remove was random loot and that all items
from containers were automatically taken.Thats it.By the way,i never open containers after i got the best staff anyway.
So the only problem was the automaticly taken loot from fights.The inventory wasnt so hoorible like people describe it to be. If people wanted to see real horror,they should look at the oblivion spell inventory on consoles.

[bjdbwea]

tonnactus wrote...

But the amount of items was limited in Mass Effect.(150 ) All they had to remove was random loot and that all items from containers were automatically taken.Thats it.By the way,i never open containers after i got the best staff anyway. So the only problem was the automaticly taken loot from fights.The inventory wasnt so hoorible like people describe it to be. If people wanted to see real horror,they should look at the oblivion spell inventory on consoles.

Yes, but 150 was obviously too much. You're right though, the automatic picking up of items was another sign of unnecessary dumbing down that created problems with the inventory in the first place.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 31 août 2010 - 06:39 .

[tonnactus]

bjdbwea wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

But the amount of items was limited in Mass Effect.(150 ) All they had to remove was random loot and that all items from containers were automatically taken.Thats it.By the way,i never open containers after i got the best staff anyway. So the only problem was the automaticly taken loot from fights.The inventory wasnt so hoorible like people describe it to be. If people wanted to see real horror,they should look at the oblivion spell inventory on consoles.

Yes, but 150 was obviously too much. You're right though, the automatic picking up of items was another sign of unnecessary dumbing down that created problems with the inventory in the first place.

Yes.If the player only take what he choose to take like in fallout,no one had ever complained about the inventory.
This couldnt be so hard to change.
But the removing of it was only an excuse to sell weapons and armors in dlc packs.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Can you say some game where they had good variety and induvidual item inventory system what actually worked?

BG 2, NWN, Deus Ex, Fallout 3. It's not exactly rocket science: Limit the amount of items and/or the weight that the player character can carry. But that's the biggest irony in the matter: The inventory in ME 1 was clunky because it was already dumbed down and did not enforce the mentioned "complicated" restrictions. So the solution to the problem created through dumbing down, is even more dumbing down?

Another problem are of course the clunky console controls that seem to make browsing through an inventory somewhat of a problem. But again, this is BioWare - if you're so keen on consoles now, then at least invest the effort to make it work properly.

Yeah, but limiting items how many player can carry was one of the problem. This cause that player had to clean up they inventory as they could not loot, because inventory was full. Hole "junk" loot is there only for one reason, so that player can sell it to get money to buy stuff what player needs. So, by removing the junk loot and replace it directly as money, you don't need anymore limits what character can carry. Nor you really need anymore much of inventory at all.

Some problems:

1. Players need to clean up inventory because it's full.
2. Players need to loot what they don't need, because need of money (selling loot).
3. Player getting items from loot what player has no use at all.
4. Long inventory list, hard to find what's needed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 août 2010 - 08:54 .

[bjdbwea]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

Some problems:

1. Players need to clean up inventory because it's full.[/quote]
Not if they aren't forced to pick up everything. A proper RPG lets you pick up and drop what you want. ME 1 already "streamlined" this away, and that was the only reason the inventory was always filling up.[/quote]

[quote]2. Players need to loot what they don't need, because need of money (selling loot).[/quote]
True, and an economy should be in every RPG. Gain money, sell stuff, and buy interesting and helpful new stuff. Too bad BioWare/EA "streamlined" this feature too in ME 2. You can't even sell minerals.

[quote]3. Player getting items from loot what player has no use at all.[/quote]
Then don't pick it up.

[quote]4. Long inventory list, hard to find what's needed.[/quote]
Weight limit and/or item number limit.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 31 août 2010 - 09:14 .

[Adiabat]

I think we can all agree that this was an attempt at a hybrid shooter/rpg which is widely stated by the developers.  Simply put, this proved to be too ambitious.  I enjoy quality shooters and quality rpgs, but having a game be both a quality shooter and quality rpg is very difficult. 

Given that ME1 has its roots in KotOR I & II, I expected at least a quality rpg.  The linear character progression (all vanguards are the same, soldiers the same...etc.), lack of open-world feel, and formulaic sidequests makes ME 2 styled like a JRPG.  That's fine if you wanted a JRPG.  However, I personally feel like it lacked the sort of punk surrealism that successful JRPGs have.

For me the real problem is immersion and believability.  Many people, especially those with Lone Survivor background, have pointed out that Shepard has no reason to work so readily and respectfully with Cerberus without more outward distrust.  In fact, for a while I was entertaining the possibility that they actually did input a control chip into his brain.  Moreso though is the lack of explorable area which isn't mentioned by critics as often as I'd hoped.  The explorable area in the citadel in ME 2 is a tiny fraction of what it was in ME 1.  At first, when taking rapid transit to the Presidium, I end up inside the captains room?  This and the arbitrary locking off parts of the Normandy is evidence of pointless hand holding and/or lazy simplification.  I'd rather jog around for a few minutes in an otherwise empty Presidium because it makes the world more seamless and immersive.

Sure, the inventory system in ME 1 had problems.  Who can carry 150 items the size of rifles or armor suits?  How about instituting reasonable inventory limits and still catering to the RPG crowd?  In a shooter you are your gun, but in a RPG there are details that make you think of your character as a person.  These details typically include hauling stuff a real soldier might haul in their backpack, and since the invention of RPGs players have become accustomed to the management of both trivial and important items as personifying their avatar.  Basically, to turn an avatar into a person, the player must be required to do things that aren't directly related to the goal.  This includes exploring towns, managing personal belongings, fishing, and making money.  ME 2 succeeds in some ways at personifying the avatar but fails in some very standard and necessary ways.  Offhand, I cannot think of a single good RPG without an inventory or selling items.  For most of ME 2, you are your gun so to speak.

Certain kinds of gamers aren't interested in doing things not directly related to the goal.  These kinds of people simply will not ever like any real RPG.  There are two crowds of gamers that simply will not ever agree on certain things:  1) the crowd who spends hours fishing, breeding chocobos, or crafting, and 2) the crowd that thinks all of those things are stupid.

Modifié par Adiabat, 31 août 2010 - 09:52 .

[bzurn]

I agree a lot with Adibat.  I hated having my first character having to work for Cerberus, and though there are few times where you can buck and protest against them, you are pigeonholed into that role until then end where you can finally stick it to them in a good way.

I think it would be cool if instead of picking up actual weapons and suits of armor you just picked up random components of weapons and armor instead of the full thing. Then you could say only hold 20-30 components before getting full, enough for a mission or two. When you returned to the ship you (or one of your crew who had the tech abilities) could stash them and then tinker with them to improve your weapons and armor. That would have been a much better solution to the inventory system, or lack thereof that is found in ME2

Modifié par bzurn, 31 août 2010 - 10:02 .

[SuperDemon]

There is **** lots of things wrong with ME2. first off the story was GAY.next was having no invertoy system with xmods. I will to shoot Casey Hudson if he doesn't fix this and get ride of the planet scaning **** and fly the gay ass ship. Go back to ME1 style of level up and all team memebr should have 12 power like ME1 not 3. ME2 should of had a high level cap as i got to level 30 3/4 away through way to easy. ME2 should of had bigger maps like they did in ME1 and they should of keep the mako so you could drive from one area to another instead they gave us a loading screen. On that topice why did they give us a mission on compete screen. I say for ME3 go back to ME1 and copy it for ME3 but keep the new cover system but give us the managed power like ME1 had. Thank for who ever reads my rant.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Some problems:

1. Players need to clean up inventory because it's full.

Not if they aren't forced to pick up everything. A proper RPG lets you pick up and drop what you want. ME 1 already "streamlined" this away, and that was the only reason the inventory was always filling up.

2. Players need to loot what they don't need, because need of money (selling loot).

True, and an economy should be in every RPG. Gain money, sell stuff, and buy interesting and helpful new stuff. Too bad BioWare/EA "streamlined" this feature too in ME 2. You can't even sell minerals.

3. Player getting items from loot what player has no use at all.

Then don't pick it up.

4. Long inventory list, hard to find what's needed.

Weight limit and/or item number limit.

If you limit inventory you have problems. If you don't remove "junk" loot from loot, then you have also problems. In simple way saying if you have limits and alot of items, you have major inventory problems.

Just adding someting to point 3. If player has to every time wonder what items to choose from loot because inventory limit or everytime check is this item useful, that's problem too. Mostly because it means that player is wasting alot of playing time checking items in loot.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 août 2010 - 10:20 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I don't think you can point to this thread as "widely accepted". As I said, just read the fan feedback on sites like gamespot and IGN - it was a very popular sequel. And many people thought the continuity was great. And considering the massive disconnect between most sequels (KOTOR vs. KOTOR II, Fable vs. Fable 2), I think many people were very impressed.

But I respect you opinion that it was a poor sequel because of lack of continuity. I agree that there was less than I hoped for - the emails and cameos were cute at first but I didn't see any of my first game decisions really impact game 2. It would have been great to have a mission on Feros and see the effects of my decisions in a more meaningful context, for example.

You're right about expectations, I believe. I had almost zero expectations for ME2 and hadn't played ME1 in well over a year so I thought it was a great sequel. On the other hand, now I'm expecting big things from ME3 so I might be right beside you if they screw that up.

And in turn respect your stand. Perhaps I am more bold in my assumptions due to having literally jumped from my Mass Effect file to Mass Effect 2 in the span of two hours, give or take. So the feeling of the original was fresh within my mind. I would have been less irritated if the emails were voiced, ala Need For Speed. This cheap text comment we receive is a significant blow in a generation where voice acting is a primar gameplay element. What is bothersome is there felt like some consideration for proper continuality, Harkin's role, Gianna, Rana and etc. Those were intriguing, albeit some like Shil'la (sp?) were indeed forced.

In reference to the complaints. I for one loved the Mako in spite of the horrid rag doll physics. If it was properly tuned, the Mako would have been a welcomed addition. Bioware removing it was a scream of laziness. They did not wish to be bothered rectify the Mako so it would function with intelligence design. This is the qualm with ME2 as a whole. It is a great game, yet every corner seems to shout how Bioware became lazy. Would it have killed them to give Garrus a few additional lines of dialogue? I like Zaeed however I would rather him cut if it meant Garrus has a stronger presence.

With Cerberus, why can we not treat TIM in similarity to how we could the Council? In ME, we could disconnect on them, insult them and in the case of the Turian, downright threaten them. In ME2, we are loyal subjects forced to serve. Now you can raise question and insinuate a hostile alliance of sorts, still I would prefer to offer every angle, not simple assumptions. Furthermore, while I like Miranda, the hell she is my second-in-command. Garrus is, whether she likes it or not. These are ultimately trivial aspects, just points where your input should have been allotted, whereas instead the game decided for you.

I would have preferred one of two options. Either you were given the option of who your SiC is or when Miranda makes her remark, you can 'correct' her. It would offer a form of tension, perhaps dislike for whomever you chose. It would be roleplaying, something ME2 does well when it attempts to (Loyalty missions), yet too often falls flat.

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

If you limit inventory you have problems. If you don't remove "junk" loot from loot, then you have also problems. In simple way saying if you have limits and alot of items, you have major inventory problems.

Just adding someting to point 3. If player has to every time wonder what items to choose from loot because inventory limit or everytime check is this item useful, that's problem too. Mostly because it means that player is wasting alot of playing time checking items in loot.

You see, some people don't consider it a "waste" of time. We like to consider which item is worth picking up and which can be dropped to make room. Dealing with the limits of an inventory adds to the challenge. Some games even give every item a realistic size, so you have to make sure everything is arranged neatly in the available space. Some call that inventory tetris, but guess what, it's a more interesting mini game than planet scanning.

And maybe the next time you play through the game, you make different decisions and the game plays a little differently because you carry different items. That's the ideal case of course, and it requires a proper amount of differing items to begin with, but you get the point. And before you say it's too much effort: No. There were many RPGs in the past that provided exactly that. So who's telling me it can't be done today? Fallout 3 has at least a weight limit still, and it does provide a large amount of items.

But of course I never expected the ME series to have an RPG system of the depth and scope of the RPGs of old. But there has to be a better compromise than removing all the features completely or dumbing them down to the extent as in ME 2.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 31 août 2010 - 10:47 .

[Lumikki]

If you like to be with calculator in junkyard and make inventory, while trying to find good nice items and then call it roleplaying. Good for you. How ever, I would like to use my playing time to adventuring and enjoying good story, not waste it for useless micro-managements, because game has huge amount of junk items.

Modifié par Lumikki, 31 août 2010 - 10:49 .

[bjdbwea]

If you want to enjoy a story, go watch a movie. If you want to mow down enemies, go play a shooter. An RPG has to offer more than that. But I agree, the story is the most important part. Too bad the main story of ME 2 is one of its biggest weaknesses.

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...
If you limit inventory you have problems. If you don't remove "junk" loot from loot, then you have also problems. In simple way saying if you have limits and alot of items, you have major inventory problems.

Just adding someting to point 3. If player has to every time wonder what items to choose from loot because inventory limit or everytime check is this item useful, that's problem too. Mostly because it means that player is wasting alot of playing time checking items in loot.

If I may be so bold:

If you have a broken arm, you have a problem.  The solution, however, is rarely amputation of the limb.

And I would say that pondering what item to choose from would be a good thing.  It forces you to think of your character and play style.  Would this weapon be better than the one I have?  What if I mod it?  People called "looking at the yellow lines" in ME 1 too simplistic.  Okay, throw in a few more weapons that have different features!

One of the nice things about rpgs is that you don't just "get better" as the game progresses.  You choose how you improve.  You invest in this skill or that weapon and neglect other abilities.  In the end, you shape your character into the image you want him or her to be.  That includes equipment.  Some games do it better than others.  ME 1 wasn't exactly a raging success at it (way too much junk, and "the good stuff" was too easy to get), but ME 2 is sadly worse than most.

[Destroy Raiden_]

ME1's inventory managements system was fine and quite tame compared to too human's system that was a nightmare! You could customize and teak your armor but then you had to had in Viking symbols to each armor pieces and I mean it all legs, shoulders, arms, forearms, hands, midsection, legs, gauntlets, boots then you could always use stolen loot to make new weapons but you had no idea what made what until you did it ans sometimes it was useless they had maybe 4 or 5 screens w/ type 1 font for all this and no real explanation on what you where doing compared to that high level of tweaking ME1's system was tame you only had to edit out the 20 rifles that where no good I liked collecting things but then they took it all away for 2 I think they went a little extreme in the inventory take down department for 3 they should bring it back but do like Final Fantasy does where they give you unlimited space and say you have Riffles X 4, Shotguns X 2, Metagel X 1, ect that way you know what you have at a glance and can easily sell w/o having to play root out the 4 rifles.

I don't think 2 reflected a JRPG. In a JRPG they have way more choices and inventory options then ME2 did, but the script writing is way better in ME2 then most JRPGs out there!

I don't know what their reason was for taking away large explorable areas and the planets you could land on I quite enjoyed being able to land on a planet for no other reason then I wanted to see what was on it and to beat up anybody who may be living on it sense they where all outlaws and pirates anyway. Bring it back and even larger in 3!

Also what was w/ the Hover craft? No shields and a main gun that took forever to shoot at least the Mako's main gun took 1/2 sec less to reload and could take a beating!

Now that you mention lone survivor Shep working w/ Cerberus yes it is odd I don't like Cerberus anyway regardless of what background my Shep is and rarely given the change to tell TIM to Foff didn't sit well with me I would've like to be vocally more disapproving, skeptically, and wary of him and my crew not just play nice no matter what I said. I would've liked to slap Liara too for dumping me like she did even Alanko or Ashly sense they all had that coming! Sorry I was dead for two years! Tell you what I'll send you a postcard next time I die so you can say I contacted you!!!!!


Miranda being you XO is forced in this one and I understand why Cerberus spent a lot of money on you and the ship and have a right to keep an eye on their investment IE Miranda is your XO deserving, qualified, wanted, or no in 3 the option should be given at least between Miranda, Garrus, and Jacob as to who will be Sheps XO and the former XO reassigned per players choice. But going back to 2 I would've liked to challenge her more when she'd say things I did not approve of like the famous line, " I'm Shepards second in command," I would've said, " Maybe so , but I didn't elect you." or " No you're not you're a glorified babysitter."

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 01 septembre 2010 - 12:00 .

[Lumikki]

iakus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
If you limit inventory you have problems. If you don't remove "junk" loot from loot, then you have also problems. In simple way saying if you have limits and alot of items, you have major inventory problems.

Just adding someting to point 3. If player has to every time wonder what items to choose from loot because inventory limit or everytime check is this item useful, that's problem too. Mostly because it means that player is wasting alot of playing time checking items in loot.

If I may be so bold:

If you have a broken arm, you have a problem.  The solution, however, is rarely amputation of the limb.

And I would say that pondering what item to choose from would be a good thing.  It forces you to think of your character and play style.  Would this weapon be better than the one I have?  What if I mod it?  People called "looking at the yellow lines" in ME 1 too simplistic.  Okay, throw in a few more weapons that have different features!

If You have 100 cockroach in you house, what's you solution to problem?
We can make as many examples as possible, but reallity is depending what examples you give.

You people seem to say don't remove it, fix it. Then provide real fix and don't say just deal it, because it's good solution. You can't solve problem saying , there isn't problem. Give real working solutions

You should have say: "Would this weapon to be better in this situation than something else what I have". What your sentence did say, was micro-manage version upgrades by manual looting.  When I try to say have variety and choose what fits the situation.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 septembre 2010 - 01:14 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

People understand, they simply don't agree. RPGs have been doing inventory for years without many issues, so the so-called "solution" of elimination isn't a valid excuse. It's not like having an inventory system is automatically fail and just because ME1's system didn't quite work doesn't mean ME2 needs to use it or that all attempts result in failure. Again, it's not a solution, it's an alternative option. Their "solution" in this case is about as much a solution to the issue of my car's tire going flat being "get rid of the car" or "remove the wheels entirely." Well, of course I can't get a flat tire if I don't have any wheels at all now, can I? But that's hardly a real solution to the problem. How about to solve my worry about my ME2 lithographs possibly being stolen I just burn them all? That certainly would prevent that now, wouldn't it?

Can you say some game where they had good variety and induvidual item inventory system what actually worked?

The point is, getting rid of the problem is not a solution.

Sometimes it is. How ever, stop saying that there is "some" other solution, show us the other solution.

Others have already pointed out inventory systems that have worked. As for showing another solution, I did come up with this compromise mock-up earlier in the year. It was my attempt at bringing back weapon stats and modding, as well as making more use of the weapons loadout screens overall (for something that's so "streamlined" apparently, the ME2 weapons loadout is incredibly inefficient and designed like a kids toy).



Beyond this the problem with ME1's inventory was mostly due to a great deal of junk items, not enough variation between the items, a case of the weapons not being well balanced (so that when you found a better one it was almost always better across the board), and worst of all, the inability to properly sort, group and perform functions en masse. If that last one had been sorted out I'll bet a lot of people would have just forgot about most of the previous problems even, because that was the big killer. ME1 PC sorted it out a little better, but it was still overall pretty poor.

I remember fans begging for decent sorting, grouping and the ability to "sell or omni-gel all" and the like, but the devs at the time said they were worried more problems would come from accidental omni-gelling or selling. Well... for the latter there's always the "buyback" option, but let's be honest... there were already loads of items in the game, and even if you did accidentally omni-gel that Colossus X armour, you're likely going to find another one at some point.

For one thing, weapons stacking would have been one way to slim down the lists, and then you could have had buttons for "sell/omni-gel all but 1" if you really wanted.

I will admit to liking ME2's scanning method to a certain degree, but it also has its issues that once you find one of a good item that's pretty much it and there's no need to find more. When you combine this with the fact that finding items in ME2 is never a mystery at all because they're always in the same damn places Every. Single. Playthrough. that just adds to the linearity and shallowness of the system. Removing modding and any form of customisation at all is just another nail in the coffin (and the research and upgrade station is NOT customisation... not when it's linear, inevitable, upgrades everything without trade-off and every player can easily just max out everything on everything. Custimisation doesn't mean every player has the same thing.

While it's not how I'd do it initially, I'd stick with the weapons loadout method they have now, but I'd add a decent amount more weapons (at least half a dozen for each type), bring back visible stats, bring back modding (as well as making it deeper, with things like weapon-specific mods), bring back omni-tools and biotic amps, make armour act like armour again (though keep the individual pieces of it), randomise a few things so that not everything is in the same place all the time, give shops a decent inventory and rotating stock so that each one isn't just "one or two visits and then useless", bring back squad armour, allow squad-weapon modding too, bring back the radar system from ME1 so we can have Combat Optics again, use the research station for basic upgrading of every item (i.e. so that it basically replaces ME1's I to X system by your upgrades raising the level of the items rather than finding better ones), I'd actually have research take some time instead of being instant (think of how research worked in things like Theme Park/Hospital) and I'd also have some research require odd rare parts other than just minerals (I always thought that The Normandy upgrades in ME2 should have required another small sub-mission to get something to make them, e.g. Garrus and you go somewhere to get a rare component for the cannon and must perform another quest for the person who has it to get it, etc.). Stuff like this.

Lumikki wrote...

If You have 100 cockroach in you house, what's you solution to problem?

The difference here is that cockroaches have absolutely no benefit to them whatsoever. You're using an example that has no positive factors and isn't linked to a necessary element given the circumstances. The answer you're looking for is "exterminate the cockroaches, yes?" Well if we're going to put this in the manner that BioWare went about things with ME2 the answer would actually be "destroy your house. Now you no longer have a house so the cockroaches aren't an issue."

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 septembre 2010 - 01:20 .

[Lumikki]

What postive factor has weapon what is worst than any you other weapon you have. It is the cockroach as I call junk item.

I remember your example picture, I was supporting it then, I'm still supporting.

Ps: Those others have not showed any inventory system what worked, they just think there isn't problem, because they can handle it. That's not how ever solution to problem what some other players have with inventory systems and looting. There is MAJOR difference between customation (variety) and illusion of variety, what in reality is just full of junk items.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 septembre 2010 - 01:38 .

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...


You people seem to say don't remove it, fix it. Then provide real fix and don't say just deal it, because it's good solution. You can't solve problem saying , there isn't problem. Give real working solutions

I've said before:  Alpha Protocol's inventory system is what both Mass Effect games' systems should have been.

You should have say: "Would this weapon to be better in this situation than something else what I have". What your sentence did say, was micro-manage version upgrades by manual looting.  When I try to say have variety and choose what fits the situation.

Looting, research, purchase with credits, I'm flexible on how new items are gained.  As long as new items are in fact gained.