10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Dick Delaware]

TJSolo wrote...

If you claim ME1 is weak in that aspect because it has a few situations( more than just Saren) that offer the player the option of combat or dialogue to resolve an issue; where does ME2 sit where it is no situations that offer that option.
Yes, there are missions that are not combat oriented but there are no missions that offer the option of combat or dialogue.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I also mentioned the Major Kyle mission. The ME series overall is pretty bad at giving you multiple ways of completing a quest (though I still feel that the whole investigation aspect of Samara's mission was just brilliant and Thane's was great as well). Compare it to something like Fallout 1 or Planescape: Torment, where you can avoid combat throughout almost the entire game if you have a charismatic/intelligent character and use the appropriate dialogue options. ME1 and ME2 had nothing like this.

Really, your preference towards ME1 aside, there are quite a few games that have done the diplomatic route far better than the ME series has. My point was that it would be good if you had more of those situations, as the series overall was lacking in them.

TJSolo wrote...
XP per kill does not create a bad mindset any more so then XP per quest.  Having equal rewards is not fair when the time and risk are not equal. The biggest problem with XP per kill is that in ME2 Bioware uses the respawning enemies trick to stimulate battles. Respawning enemies is a step backwards along with only getting XP per mission.

What do you mean by time and risk not being equal?

Why is getting XP per mission a step backwards? In fact, I think it's good design and should be encouraged more. It rewards the player for completing the mission, not the approach that they took in completing it. Really, that's my beef with an XP per kill system - it encourages the player to just shoot everything instead of taking a different approach.

[KitsuneRommel]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Why is getting XP per mission a step backwards? In fact, I think it's good design and should be encouraged more. It rewards the player for completing the mission, not the approach that they took in completing it. Really, that's my beef with an XP per kill system - it encourages the player to just shoot everything instead of taking a different approach.

Creating world peace is less rewarding than killing everyone else.

[TJSolo]

Dick Delaware wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

If you claim ME1 is weak in that aspect because it has a few situations( more than just Saren) that offer the player the option of combat or dialogue to resolve an issue; where does ME2 sit where it is no situations that offer that option.
Yes, there are missions that are not combat oriented but there are no missions that offer the option of combat or dialogue.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I also mentioned the Major Kyle mission. The ME series overall is pretty bad at giving you multiple ways of completing a quest (though I still feel that the whole investigation aspect of Samara's mission was just brilliant and Thane's was great as well). Compare it to something like Fallout 1 or Planescape: Torment, where you can avoid combat throughout almost the entire game if you have a charismatic/intelligent character and use the appropriate dialogue options. ME1 and ME2 had nothing like this.

Really, your preference towards ME1 aside, there are quite a few games that have done the diplomatic route far better than the ME series has. My point was that it would be good if you had more of those situations, as the series overall was lacking in them.

TJSolo wrote...
XP per kill does not create a bad mindset any more so then XP per quest.  Having equal rewards is not fair when the time and risk are not equal. The biggest problem with XP per kill is that in ME2 Bioware uses the respawning enemies trick to stimulate battles. Respawning enemies is a step backwards along with only getting XP per mission.

What do you mean by time and risk not being equal?

Why is getting XP per mission a step backwards? In fact, I think it's good design and should be encouraged more. It rewards the player for completing the mission, not the approach that they took in completing it. Really, that's my beef with an XP per kill system - it encourages the player to just shoot everything instead of taking a different approach.

If you want to talk about different approaches and overall game design, fine but on the topic of ME2 there are no different ways to accomplish missions. So from the perspective or not having optional combat and only having xp per mission, it is a step backwards because they do not implement adaptive leveling such as xp per kill and skill usage.

Really you try to go out of your way to someone demean ME1. Face it in the ME franchise ME1 offers the option to avoid some fights while ME2 does not. There is no point in going down the "Other games did it better" because it still leaves ME2 in the lurch.

[Dick Delaware]

TJSolo wrote...
If you want to talk about different approaches and overall game design, fine but on the topic of ME2 there are no different ways to accomplish missions. So from the perspective or not having optional combat and only having xp per mission, it is a step backwards because they do not implement adaptive leveling such as xp per kill and skill usage.

Really you try to go out of your way to someone demean ME1. Face it in the ME franchise ME1 offers the option to avoid some fights while ME2 does not. There is no point in going down the "Other games did it better" because it still leaves ME2 in the lurch.

Both games were still pretty bad at this. Only a handful of times could you avoid confrontation in ME1, and even then, it was releated to sidequests anyways. The one situation where you could stop Saren, he turns into a robot anyways. It's really minor. This isn't demeaning the game - I specifically said "the ME series" which includes both games. It is a flaw of the series as a whole. One being slightly less shi*ty at it doesn't make it good. It's like when debate over whether planet scanning or the Mako was better - big deal, both of them sucked, scrap them.

Yeah, ME2 only had either combat or diplomatic missions, but there were more outcomes, greater variation, (for me, only Noveria really stood out in the original) consequences to choices (saving Veetor and Kal'Reegar gives you another solution for Tali's mission, your crew dies if you don't save them in time, loyalty missions contribute to the effectiveness of your squad, who you pick for certain roles matters, etc) so it made up for that in my mind. Also, you could start the mission at a much earlier point because the game wasn't bogged down in the "Collect 4 Star Maps" design that plagues BIoWare games.

Still though, including diplomatic alternatives in the final game for certain situations would improve things greatly.

[TMZuk]

Why should you get more xp .... "experience points" .... for just killing everything in your path? What does that teach you? What is the experience you learn from? That it is dangerous and you might die, where as cleverness, diplomacy or guile may keep you alive?



As this is a game, and the players should have fun playing it, I don't think one option should be awarded significantly more xp than the other.



A good method, IMO, would be to calculate how many xp killing every opponent in a mission is worth. This is now the xp you get for completing the mission, regardless wether you do so, or not. Then, incorporate hidden bonus-xp, obtainable through combat in some missions, avoiding combat in others, and perhaps both in some missions as well.



Also, I'd like to point out, it is hardly paragon to wipe out everything in your path, just because you can.

[uberdowzen]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

I played Mass Effect on the 360 when it first came out and then got the PC version later. The elevator loads on the PC were clearly faster, especially the Normandy one. That's how I know.

As for whether most people hated the elevators or not, I think overall its pretty divided. I do recall when they first announced they were replacing elevators with loading screens many thought that it was a bit of an odd step backwards, and I agreed. At the time I know I and many others were willing to give it a go because they said the loading screens were dynamic and had interesting info displayed about your location and such, but that turned out to be an exaggeration. The loading screens in ME2 are tedious. Admittedly faster, but tedious. I also miss literally leaving The Normandy and having that perfect transition from ship to location.[/quote]

Well I was under the impression that the reason that they were so long (compared to just load screens going to the same area) was because obviously they have to create an elevator shaft in the level (and it would take some very complicated code to make the length of that dynamic) so how could the load times in elevators be any shorter? Unless you mean that, for example, on the Normandy in ME1 the load icon appears for longer or something? I agree that it would have been awesome if the elevator in the Normandy SR2 had been a smooth transition (and I'm not entirely sure why it's not, the entire Normandy wouldn't be any bigger than the biggest levels in ME2).

[quote]

Sure... if you think so. Quite frankly I think The Hammerhead misses the point and was poorly integrated and used for the most part. Far prefer The Mako in pretty much every respect.[/quote]

I disagree on poorly integrated (it's DLC, how well can you integrate it) but I do agree that the missions didn't really do it for me. Only 2 with enemies out of 5? It's an armed hovertank. Although I did like the cinematic on the world where you fought Geth, the cinematic that was reminiscent of the Geth Colossus cinematics in ME1. I liked that.

[quote]

Initially, I'd personally have it like ME1, but with not quite as many items, no Marks for the items (you'd research to upgrade them), with mods still present and with the weapons actually useful and balanced so not too many become obsolete too quickly and not too many are too good either, so that overall some are good at some aspects and some at others. All items of the same time would be sorted together and could be lumped together and sold or gelled in a bunch or have a "Sell/Omnigel All But One" option and a "Sell/Omnigel All But *# of Squaddies Who Can Use Weapon*" option too. I'd have weapon and armour mods the same, and overall just make the system easier to use.

After ME2, I'd change it a bit though, because there are some good ideas in the system, even if overall its weak. Firstly, I'd keep the "you only need to find an item once" style. I'd then have had about half a dozen of each weapon type, all with stats visible for comparisons, all with the ability to mod them, and mostly in random locations that changed every time. You'd also scan for mods from dead enemies or if you didn't want to do that because its too tedious you could simply buy them in shops. LIke weapons, one mod scanned and you can replicate it, though they'd be random too. Same goes for armour: more of it, more random, more moddable and with stats and overall have it act like armour. Have it so you can armour your squaddies too. Research would basically level up your guns, armour and mods for both. Guns and armour mods would be your customisation and trade-off stuff: limited mod slots that make you pick and choose how you want the gun to function. Some mods would be ME1 style, others more specific, a little like Crysis (different barrel mods, scope mods, trigger mods, etc).[/quote]

Yeah, I was actually with you at first, I always assumed that that's what they'd do. I mean half the problems with the inventory could probably be fixed by allowing stacking. Problem is I think that inventorys like that probably work much better on PC than on consoles.

I'd never thought of having mods working like Crysis (that'd work really well actually, and actually just to go off on a totally random tangent for a minute, do you reckon the reason that the people who didn't like Crysis never mentioned anything like the weapon customisation because it was so well integrated into the game and it would've actually just felt wrong not to have elements like that). A few issues with your idea though. Firstly, randomness. All the really good items in ME1 I'm pretty sure weren't randomised. The junk items you got from crates were, but mostly I just omnigelled those anyway. I do think that mods in the style of Crysis would work well (it's just whenever I think of weapon mods in relation to Mass Effect, I think the dinky little mods from ME1 that made little to no difference to anything). I actually think ditching the inventory and replacing it with more customisable weapons is the answer. I also don't like the scanning fallen enemies for mods part, you didn't even have to do that in ME1.

I do sometimes wonder if people would have had as much problem with the weapon system if it'd had it's own interface, rather than just the standard selection interface from ME2 (I feel I've seen a screen like this somewhere, it may have been in the "Where's my Inventory" presentation).

[quote]

Except that every weapon is in the same damn place every time, you're always guaranteed to get it, its upgrades are linear and always in the same place, and you can get all of them easily, and there's no customisation or real selection of weapons at all. Nothing is random. Nothing is special. Nothing is rare or even common. It's just "play the game, find the gun." It's no deeper than playing through Doom or Quake. Its linear, limited, boring and repetitive, with no depth or customisation at all.[/quote]

Just like in ME1 then?

[quote]

It has somewhat, IMO. Not into perhaps, but at least through it. It's been dumbed down for the masses.[/quote]

We have to agree to differ or this is just going to go in circles.

[quote]

Working in a place that sells games, you'd be surprised how many people have only just glancingly heard of the ME titles. Full on hardcore gamers, yes. Casual gamers, not so much.

And no... that used to be the case 10 years ago and more, but over the last decade gaming has become far more of a mainstream thing, and games overall have suffered for it, IMO, just as much as they've also grown from it. Deus Ex is still the pinnacle of gaming perfection that hasn't been touched since, and it's over 10 years old now.[/quote]

Really? I got the feeling that almost everyone with an Xbox had played ME. Guess I was wrong.

Also, do you get free games for working at a games store (I'm not mocking, seriously, I'm actually interested to know).

[quote]
No offense, but that's just stupid. That's the way the thing was set up, and that's how it was originally intended to be. Just because you feel it doesn't suit itself because you prefer the way it was done with ME2 doesn't mean you're right.[/quote]

I kind of agree, but elements of that game (like the inventory) feel more like unfinished prototypes to me.

[quote]
You just responded to one just below your post here that a couple of other posters brought up... and mocked them for doing so, might I add. Y'know... the one about saving Wrex and The Council or not paying off big time and being a major event in ME2. What a crock of excrement that was. They all talked the whole thing up and kept saying this, only for the entire thing to be completely underwhelming, with the entire plot so removed from anything that it meant squat, most variations resulting in minor dialogue changes that didn't really change the universe at all, weak substitutions where things were essentially the same which was an insult to the supposed gravity of the situation and the characters involved, major stuff that was screwed up or simply not explored, and finally just a heap of lame emails and news reports, leaving about 5 or 6 decisions in total that were even remotely satisfying out of what was claimed to be over 700.

Yeah... I think that's enough to get the point across.[/quote]

Firstly, I didn't mock people bringing up the point (I to a certain extent agree with the people who brought it up), I mocked them ignoring the rest of the article, when I suspect they went in searching for that one quote that would ****** them off. That article for the most part was well written and had many very good arguments. If you also read my post, you would have noticed I pointed out that that was a quote from the writer, not Bioware.

I don't think they were major events, but I do think that they were important parts of ME2. And honestly, Bioware always (not just ME2) over hypes the whole choices thing a little bit. And were you seriously expecting something which is borderline optional to have that much effect on the plot? It was always going to be minor things and I'm pretty sure Bioware never said the course of the plot would be vastly changed by the save file.

[quote]

Ooooh... twice! Wow.. that's certainly a good run of the game to form an accurate assessment.[/quote]

A well made game should be able to get it's point across on the first playthrough. I consider it poor design if you have to play through a game more than once to fully enjoy (especially something so linear and scripted as CoD).

[quote]

Except that it happened. I was here on the old forums, during and post ME1 release, long before the first ME2 teaser even hit, and it came up a fair amount.[/quote]

Well, if they have the commitment to go on and do that, then they're obviously ME fans.

[quote]
It is flawed. I won't deny that. But that doesn't mean ME2's system is perfect either and free of flaws.

And while there is a difference, ME2 relies too much on instant satisfaction and visible results and all that BS. It's too geared to the ADD gamer who will turn away and never look back if he/she isn't satisfied and sees a clear result every time he does something.[/quote]

No, I agree, ME2 isn't perfect yet either, but I generally consider it an improvement over ME1 in almost everyway.

[tonnactus]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Where are the non combat solutions in Mass Effect?

Since you mentioned Thane how about Thane's loyalty mission? There's your lethal/non-lethal solution.

This mission was never designed in a way the soemone could choose between combat or persuation.Something like this just not exist in Mass Effect 2.

[Xpheyel]

uberdowzen wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Except that every weapon is in the same damn place every time, you're always guaranteed to get it, its upgrades are linear and always in the same place, and you can get all of them easily, and there's no customisation or real selection of weapons at all. Nothing is random. Nothing is special. Nothing is rare or even common. It's just "play the game, find the gun." It's no deeper than playing through Doom or Quake. Its linear, limited, boring and repetitive, with no depth or customisation at all.

Just like in ME1 then?

Now now, ME1 does have customization.

Of course, it manages to be linear, limited, boring and repetitive in a single playthrough, has less depth than ME2 due to horrid selection and Spectre weapons but thats ignored 'cause it did it randomly and drew some bars on the screen.  

[tonnactus]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

What support classes?

[/quote]
The engineer and sentinel where support classes.They could choose the Medic as a Specialisation.And it was possible to let others mostly do the fight.



[Quote]


Oh, right I didn't realise that. Question though: why do I need to lower damage protection when I can kill an unwarped enemy in one shot with my shotgun?

[/Quote]
The only enemie on insanity you could oneshot with a carnage blast where geth troopers/snipers/rocket troopers.Thats it.You cant do this with krogan or mercs,not even with geth shocktroopers.



[quote]
Yeah? That's because they're a short range weapon. So essentially you want it to be like a pistol that takes down shields?

[/quote]
Now players have the locust with a decent range and real good accuracy.A short range weapon doesnt make much sense for squishy adepts and engineers...(i dont count bonus talents)


[quote]


No it doesn't make the game more challenging it just means you spend more time hiding and doing nothing. Honestly, the opinion of ME2 combat goes from too easy to too hard quite a bit around here.[/quote]

"The opinion"? Its not my opinion.There only some issues with vanguard because of some very annoying bugs,but all other classes are a breeze.






[/quote]
I still have to use pause because i can only have three powers mapped,and that are my powers.[/quote]

Yeah, on the crappy console version. No problem on PC...

[quote]

And what was/is the problem on the pc???Pcplayers in Mass Effect knows always when their abilites cooled down and could place their squadmates at different places.

[quote]


Yeah, that doesn't really answer the question.
[/quote]
It does.It is ok when biotics wouldnt affect bosses like harbinger or enemies who have biotic barriers theirself.But cannon fodder with shields?Well,the illusive man was stupid to invest billions in gillian...
What an adept could do with a heavy mech?Shooting,that its. And the class doesnt have good weapon damage or the drone as an distraction.



[quote]


Gameplay > Lore.

[quote]
The lore is part of the story,the whole universe.So lore>gameplay that isnt even better.




[quote]


Yes, that's when you fall back. Simple solution, don't let enemies flank you.

[quote]
Sometimes flanking happen.And when i could easily finish this enemy off why i should leave my cover.Yes,a real gameplay improvement.



[quote]

Ah, you mean those situation where you could confuse the AI by sniping from really far away. Yep those parts were great...

[/quote]

What confusing?The enemies still shoot? And the enemies are still dumb.In Legions mission,last past,when the team stay in the cover next to the door,not even geth hunters advance to this position.

[tonnactus]

Terror_K wrote...

Christina Norman said that one of their major approaches to ME2 was "to make things as simple as possible" and I think that strategy and approach is what killed ME2 for me more than anything else.

I played oblivion and thought that it wasnt possible to make the leveling system in Mass Effect even more simpler.(and more boring/area biotic/tech or stronger version/squad ammo or stronger version)

[KitsuneRommel]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

The engineer and sentinel where support classes.They could choose the Medic as a Specialisation.And it was possible to let others mostly do the fight.[/quote]

If only the NPCs were smart about their use of cover. They don't even realize when they have 3 rockets coming straight at
them. I can't see how playing like that is anything but an excercise in masochism (not that it isn't fun to do challenging things from time to time).


[quote]Now players have the locust with a decent range and real good accuracy.A short range weapon doesnt make much sense for squishy adepts and engineers...(i dont count bonus talents)[/quote]

Sadly ME1 is guilty of this as well. What kind of army doesn't train everyone to use assault rifles? I mean did goverments just get even more stupid in the future?


[quote]No it doesn't make the game more challenging it just means you spend more time hiding and doing nothing. Honestly, the opinion of ME2 combat goes from too easy to too hard quite a bit around here.[/quote]

Without the sniper rifle bonus talent I'd spend most of my time waiting for cooldowns with my adept. It's especially bad at low levels.

[quote]I still have to use pause because i can only have three powers mapped,and that are my powers.[/quote]

Yeah, on the crappy console version. No problem on PC...[/quote]

Ouch. That really sucks.

[quote]And what was/is the problem on the pc???Pcplayers in Mass Effect knows always when their abilites cooled down and could place their squadmates at different places.[/quote]

If only they stayed there...

[quote]
What an adept could do with a heavy mech?Shooting,that its. And the class doesnt have good weapon damage or the drone as an distraction.[/quote]

Use your squad mates? They are supposed to bring skills that you lack.

[AlanC9]

TJSolo wrote...
What do you mean not familar with the genre, your examples of pnp rules are limited special case rules that in your words the hardcore uses and NWN after community expansions. In order to actually understand you one would need to know what you mean by hardcore.

I didn't give examples of PnP rules that weren't based on kill XP. I simply said that even among D&D players there's been a movement away from kill XP, and this movement has been led by the people who are the biggest experts on the system and on roleplaying in general. This goes back to Dragon magazine articles, which I won't bother citing since they aren't online.

But if you want to discuss published rules, sure. For starters, the "universal" systems  (GURPS, TORG, etc) don't use kill XP. Non-fantasy RPGs typically don't use kill XP  -- I'm not aware of a superhero RPG that's used it since Villains and Vigilantes back in 1982, and few sci-fi systems do that aren't based on D20. (Anyone remember original Traveller, which was a huge hit without any experience mechanism at all?). Non-class-based fantasy RPGs typically don't use kill XP either. The only category of PnP RPGs where kill XP is common are the class-based fantasy RPGs.

Really, the only things keeping kill XP going in PnP are the inertia of the D&D system and systems derived from it, and PnP systems based on CRPGs.

[KitsuneRommel]

tonnactus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Christina Norman said that one of their major approaches to ME2 was "to make things as simple as possible" and I think that strategy and approach is what killed ME2 for me more than anything else.

I played oblivion and thought that it wasnt possible to make the leveling system in Mass Effect even more simpler.(and more boring/area biotic/tech or stronger version/squad ammo or stronger version)

I'm not sure what you people find so complex about leveling in ME1. You have skills that you can put points in. At certain intervals you get a better version of the the skill or you unlock a new one. Rest of the points are basically fillers with minor improvements (+0.2s duration, +50N to force, +2% to damage and accuracy etc). You won't even notice those.

Though ME2 went a little overboard with streamlining of those. Still, getting rid of the Charm, Intimidate and Spectre Training skills was a good thing.

[tonnactus]

SuperMedbh wrote...


Sure. By "more powerful" I was speaking in terms of the whole DPS thingee. But the Vindicator fires in bursts, the Avenger doesn't. Depending on your playstyle, you might like the Avenger better for just that reason (I don't, but some say they do). What about the Revenant? Lots of damage, but sprays all over the place. 

Not with the accuracy upgrade.

[AlanC9]

KitsuneRommel wrote...
Still, getting rid of the Charm, Intimidate and Spectre Training skills was a good thing.

What was wrong with Charm and Intimidate as skills?

[ShakeZoohla]

uberdowzen wrote...

That article for the most part was well written and had many very good arguments. If you also read my post, you would have noticed I pointed out that that was a quote from the writer, not Bioware.

I don't think they were major events, but I do think that they were important parts of ME2. And honestly, Bioware always (not just ME2) over hypes the whole choices thing a little bit. And were you seriously expecting something which is borderline optional to have that much effect on the plot? It was always going to be minor things and I'm pretty sure Bioware never said the course of the plot would be vastly changed by the save file.

I read that article start to finish and found it nothing more than a rehash of the same old ME2 hype.

And the whole choices carrying over but never being planned to affect the plot kind of defeats the purpose of making the choices anyways.  Bioware always hyped Mass Effect as having a personal story (something that is also in that article).

[uberdowzen]

tonnactus wrote...

The engineer and sentinel where support classes.They could choose the Medic as a Specialisation.And it was possible to let others mostly do the fight.

Correct, they were, hence why no one played as them (and before you get all indignant, I know that some people played as them, but the majority didn't)

The only enemie on insanity you could oneshot with a carnage blast where geth troopers/snipers/rocket troopers.Thats it.You cant do this with krogan or mercs,not even with geth shocktroopers.

And since when has insanity been the default level? You know, the one you have to unlock. I was playing at veteran and I could one shot most enemies, I can only imagine how easy it must be on normal.

Now players have the locust with a decent range and real good accuracy.A short range weapon doesnt make much sense for squishy adepts and engineers...(i dont count bonus talents)

Um, why not? You said yourself, most combat is close range indoor combat.

"The opinion"? Its not my opinion.There only some issues with vanguard because of some very annoying bugs,but all other classes are a breeze.

This wasn't necersarily a jab at you, more the fact that the people critisising ME2 seem to say that either the combat is too easy or too hard.

And what was/is the problem on the pc???Pcplayers in Mass Effect knows always when their abilites cooled down and could place their squadmates at different places.

Um, there aren't any problems with it, hence why it's the best version. Don't quite get that...

It does.It is ok when biotics wouldnt affect bosses like harbinger or enemies who have biotic barriers theirself.But cannon fodder with shields?Well,the illusive man was stupid to invest billions in gillian...
What an adept could do with a heavy mech?Shooting,that its. And the class doesnt have good weapon damage or the drone as an distraction.

That's when you rely on a tech character, like Miranda, who has overload. Or you use your sub machine gun. And also, biotics still reduce shields, shields just protect enemies from the effects.

The lore is part of the story,the whole universe.So lore>gameplay that isnt even better.

Your opinion. And in general, I'd rather play through a game that is fun but takes liberty with it's lore than a crap game that sticks by it's lore to the letter.

Sometimes flanking happen.And when i could easily finish this enemy off why i should leave my cover.Yes,a real gameplay improvement.

Why don't you just quickly fall back to one of the other cover zones? Or stay in the cover and shoot at the flanking enemy from there?

What confusing?The enemies still shoot? And the enemies are still dumb.In Legions mission,last past,when the team stay in the cover next to the door,not even geth hunters advance to this position.

Yeah, but they don't really hit you. And I'm not totally sure which part of Legions loyalty mission you're talking about.

[uberdowzen]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

I read that article start to finish and found it nothing more than a rehash of the same old ME2 hype.

And the whole choices carrying over but never being planned to affect the plot kind of defeats the purpose of making the choices anyways.  Bioware always hyped Mass Effect as having a personal story (something that is also in that article).

But parts of the story are slightly shifted based on your choices. Are you saying you'd rather not have this at all?

[KitsuneRommel]

AlanC9 wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...
Still, getting rid of the Charm, Intimidate and Spectre Training skills was a good thing.

What was wrong with Charm and Intimidate as skills?

Compared to how they worked in ME2? Lots. While having skills like that works as a crutch when you play with inexperienced people when I GM I expect more than just a dice roll when you are trying to intimidate or charm someone for e.g. information. And in ME1 you are pretty much forced to put points in one of them.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
What do you mean not familar with the genre, your examples of pnp rules are limited special case rules that in your words the hardcore uses and NWN after community expansions. In order to actually understand you one would need to know what you mean by hardcore.

I didn't give examples of PnP rules that weren't based on kill XP. I simply said that even among D&D players there's been a movement away from kill XP, and this movement has been led by the people who are the biggest experts on the system and on roleplaying in general. This goes back to Dragon magazine articles, which I won't bother citing since they aren't online.

But if you want to discuss published rules, sure. For starters, the "universal" systems  (GURPS, TORG, etc) don't use kill XP. Non-fantasy RPGs typically don't use kill XP  -- I'm not aware of a superhero RPG that's used it since Villains and Vigilantes back in 1982, and few sci-fi systems do that aren't based on D20. (Anyone remember original Traveller, which was a huge hit without any experience mechanism at all?). Non-class-based fantasy RPGs typically don't use kill XP either. The only category of PnP RPGs where kill XP is common are the class-based fantasy RPGs.

Really, the only things keeping kill XP going in PnP are the inertia of the D&D system and systems derived from it, and PnP systems based on CRPGs.

Well I am still looking through the rules of a few PnP games; Fall Out, Champions, and Mutants & Masterminds. I still see rewards per kill although there are other ways to get rewards and advance a character.

It really doesn't look like inertia is keeping kill xp in games pnp or otherwise. It looks like players like to advance their characters somehow and have thought of ways that are just not levels / xp. Per kill provides a steady source of xp, power points, heropoints so that players can keep getting perks and skills not just levels. I don't see a PnP game doing quest only xp that instantly levels the players up.

Then again there really isn't one direction PnPs are taking. There are people that want to do away with levels. There are people that want to do way with general xp. The official and house rules are accomodating enough for many extremes, the issues after that are will the GM allow it and will there be enough people wanting to play with those rules.

[Xpheyel]

uberdowzen wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

It does.It is ok when biotics wouldnt affect bosses like harbinger or enemies who have biotic barriers theirself.But cannon fodder with shields?Well,the illusive man was stupid to invest billions in gillian...
What an adept could do with a heavy mech?Shooting,that its. And the class doesnt have good weapon damage or the drone as an distraction.

That's when you rely on a tech character, like Miranda, who has overload. Or you use your sub machine gun. And also, biotics still reduce shields, shields just protect enemies from the effects.

Honestly. Adept is the only class so far on Insanity where I completely held the bridge in the Archangel recruitment mission. The guys coming across primarily use shields. I had singularities up constantly and was often using my other powers as well as shooting/using squad powers to strip defenses... But to some people it sucks because you get to Haestrom and can't just lift the colossus so you can shoot it a zillion times with your pistol while its helpless.

[uberdowzen]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...
Still, getting rid of the Charm, Intimidate and Spectre Training skills was a good thing.

What was wrong with Charm and Intimidate as skills?

Compared to how they worked in ME2? Lots. While having skills like that works as a crutch when you play with inexperienced people when I GM I expect more than just a dice roll when you are trying to intimidate or charm someone for e.g. information. And in ME1 you are pretty much forced to put points in one of them.

Well, you don't have to. It unlocks extra bonuses but the game won't be ruined by not having it. I didn't like how it worked in ME2, as there was only 1 persuade that my character couldn't do, and I was allowed to go back later and try it again.

[tonnactus]

Dick Delaware wrote...


ME1 was quite weak in this regard as well. Sure, you can get Saren to kill himself, but you'll have to fight Mecha-Saren anyways. The Major Kyle side quest was really minor and it was nothing particularly special either.

Bringing down the sky was a good example.With the batarian second command.

[tonnactus]

[quote]KitsuneRommel wrote...

If only the NPCs were smart about their use of cover.
[/quote]
They use cover.They stay in cover until the fight was over.No problem.
The squad ai is now a lot dumber of course.Morinth was running around and charging a group of husks.(just one example from a gaming sessing today).Mordin take cover at explosives...
They dont really need cover in Mass Effect.(ob,maybee garrus)
Ashley and Wrex had immunity.Wrex,Liara and Kaidan had barrier and disabling abilites.In the endgame,with colossus x armor they raley die.Tali has really high shields.

[quote]
They don't even realize when they have 3 rockets coming straight at
them.
[/quote]
And that is different now???Miranda like it to stop rockets with her head.
[quote]
I can't see how playing like that is anything but an excercise in masochism (not that it isn't fun to do challenging things from time to time).[/quote]

What masochism?The squadmates were nearly equal to shepardt in Mass Effect then in Mass Effect 2 with signifant less talents(best specialists in the galaxy,lol) and at least double cooldown time,and the shield bug.In addition to that only shepardt got upgrades like hardened shields.


[quote]
Sadly ME1 is guilty of this as well. What kind of army doesn't train everyone to use assault rifles? I mean did goverments just get even more stupid in the future?[/quote]

Pistols were decent weapons for the caster classes.Good accuracy and range.



[Quote]


If only they stayed there...

[/quote]
They did it.Dont know what you mean.

[/quote]
Use your squad mates? They are supposed to bring skills that you lack.

[/quote]
Would it be wrong or somehow bad if i could lift a heavy mech like i could do in the first game with armatures,geth primes and even a geth colossus??? I dont want an ability to destroy his shields.Just that my biotics work on that thing.

And its horrible idiotic that not even singularity works on varren...

[tonnactus]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...


And since when has insanity been the default level? You know, the one you have to unlock. I was playing at veteran and I could one shot most enemies, I can only imagine how easy it must be on normal.

[/quote]

No,its not.But the difference between Mass Effect insanity and Mass Effect 2 insanity:Powers still work like intended.Lift still lift enemies,some have just a bigger physics resistence.In Mass Effect 2 even cannon fooder is "protected".

Singularity is still good,but mystically dont work on varren and robodogs.And someone have me really to explain,why it doesnt affect heavy mechs and geth primes,but scions and harbringer drones.
Good gameplay have to made sense,you know.And arent the collectors and the reapers the main threat in this game??
Another example is that the tech drone works on the geth prime, but not on geth hunters.Sense???
The prime is the leader of the geth squad and had a higher rank then the hunter.

[quote]
Um, why not? You said yourself, most combat is close range indoor combat.

[/quote]
I said nothing about close range.Indoor yes,middle range combat where you dont need a sniper.



[quote]
The lore is part of the story,the whole universe.So lore>gameplay that isnt even better.[/quote]

Your opinion. And in general, I'd rather play through a game that is fun but takes liberty with it's lore than a crap game that sticks by it's lore to the letter.

[/quote]
And how does it make it the gameplay better if shielded enemies are barely affected by most biotics except singularity???


[quote]


Yeah, but they don't really hit you. And I'm not totally sure which part of Legions loyalty mission you're talking about.
[/quote]
The last part.(the upload)