10273 réponses à ce sujet

[uberdowzen]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...

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".[/quote]

Two things. Firstly, I got the feeling that this was in the original mass effect, it's just now there is a system that shows what is going on. Secondly, it's a challenge, it makes you think about what you're doing.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Maybe it doesn't work on synthetic enemies? I don't know I didn't really use singularity that much as an adept.

[quote]
Good gameplay have to made sense,you know.And arent the collectors and the reapers the main threat in this game??[/quote]

I agree, and for the most part it does.

[quote]
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]

It doesn't have to go by rank. Maybe the Hunters (they're the stealthy ones that cloak right?) have some kind of device to make tech drones not work on them.

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

Still doesn't explain why adepts etc can't have a short range weapon. Also it's not really short range (like the shotgun) it's just not that accurate.

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

It means you need to rely on your team to take those shields down.

[quote]
The last part.(the upload)
[/quote]

I didn't notice any AI problems there.

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

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?

Given that Bioware said that we should  "hold onto your save files" for ME2, and we should do the same for ME3 that this would be a trilogy of games to tell Shepard's story, that were told that some 700 choices are actually recorded in ME1, and what 1000(?), for ME2, yeah I'd say there should be more than a "slight shift" in the story. 

If this was any other game, a standalone title that happened to be set in the Mass Effect Universe, I'd say "sure, make up a whole new story"  But given this is Mass Effect 2 starring Commander Shephard, part of the continuing story, in which the last volume involved some MAJOR decisions both politically and personally, I'd expect some of these choices to resonate through the game, and not just the email folders.  Largely hitting the reset button,  well, "That's...a little extreme, Commander"

Did I set the bar too high in my expectations?  Maybe.  IT was a tall order.  But up til now Bioware had a perfect score in delivering great stories, so I felt comfortable setting a high bar. If this is what they set out to do, I figured the technology was now here and was confident they could deliver.  

There were choices where I paused and pondered, wondering what the future repercussions could be. Turned out I was wasting my time.  (Given the plot in ME2 I would have at least thought the choice of whether or not to sell Cerberus secrets to the Shadow Broker would have factored into the game.) 

[Terror_K]

[quote]uberdowzen wrote...

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?[/quote]

Once you're out of sight of your leaving point all you basically see is the same passing textures and/or lights beyond the elevator. All one needs to do is have this repeating until the loading is done with the minimum time synced up with the length of the news report or squad banter, then proceed to insert the destination that's been fully loaded in that time.

[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]

Well, having Shepard actually say something about what was going on instead of being silent all the damn time would have been nice (though this is a problem with pretty much every N7 mission as well). Other than that I just feel that the devs for ME2 missed the point  with regards to what The Mako was good for in ME1. The Hammerhead is too flimsy and lacks punch, is too limited with weaponry and can't even independently turn its turret or zoom in any more. Seems like a big step back where you've sacrificed everything else for speed and maneuverability. And what's with the entire vehicle shaking around to simply scan something (in ME1 Shepard could just stand beside something and whisk an omni-tool over it without so much as a hiccup, but the Hammerhead becomes a diabetic on a sugar rush having a seizure just scanning something). On top of that, there's no proper exploration and every mission just felt like a overly designed level carved for the sake of your Hammerhead rather than a real world and turned the entire experience into a lame platform game with shooty bits. As the icing on the cake, there's absolutely no HUD whatsoever, so you can't even tell how damaged you are beyond being on fire and beeping... not that it matters when the vehicle has magical healing abilities given to it from pixie land.

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Only the Spectre weapons or quest reward items weren't. Colossus armour (unless you did BDtS) was always a random drop or find. Many other items depended on licences, a factor that's completely missing from ME2 that I miss, though it doesn't need it in with its current weapon system (which I don't like).

[quote]
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.[/quote]

Some of the ME1 mods have (weirdly) become powers for the Soldier and Vanguard now of course. I would like to see the old synthetic and organic ones back, as well as the return of the (proper and working) radar (why did this go?!!) and Combat Optics, amongst a few other useful ones. The rest I'd make mods more in the Crysis style, including weapon-specific ones (mods that only work on sniper rifles, mods that only work on shotguns, etc.).

I suggested the scanning thing for mods because I feel ME3 needs a looting system back in some form, but suggested the idea of being able to simply buy the mods for those who don't want to scan, so either one can put in the effort for the reward or they can just pay credits to avoid the hassle. The idea wasn't that every single enemy would be able to be scanned... more like in ME2 where you scan the weapons: there's a random chance an enemy that falls will be able to be scanned, and in that case you get a random mod, which is uploaded to The Normandy database just like the weapons. You only need to scan one of them, ala the weapons, and then you can buy the upgrade options in stores for it and make the mod better.

While on the subject, I also want to see Biotic Amps and Omni-tools back as items as well.

[quote]
[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]

Uh.... no. Aside from the Spectre gear (why, I feel I must add, I think was a bad move in ME1) everything else is pretty much a random drop. It wasn't always in the same place, most of the items could be modded to suit your preferences, some items are rarer than others, some you need a licence to even get, etc. If you opened a crate or killed an enemy at least you didn't know exactly what was there or what was to come. ME2 just has the weapons sitting there in the same spot in the same location Every. Damn. Time, with no way to customise them or mod them at all and nothing more than a bunch of linear upgrades you find or buy at the same location Every. Damn. Time. ME2's system wouldn't have been so shallow, boring and cringingly bad if it had just randomised things. I know in some cases it doesn't make much sense narrative wise (e.g. the collectors weapon on Horizon, the DLC weapons) but ME3 needs to get rid of this tedious way of giving us our items, as well as actually give us some more of them and not in such a limited fashion.

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

On rare occasions. Usually its just a general discount, though we can win free stuff from sales competitions or sometimes if a company rep comes around we'll get a free game. Managers are more likely to get free or really cheap games or consoles though.

[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.[/quote]

I personally found most of the article to be media-spin BS, lame excuses and full on admissions of dumbing things down. There were some interesting points here and there, but overall it just proves even more to me that they made the wrong choices for the sake of appealing to a greater audience, oversimplified things and that there are people who perhaps shouldn't be working on the ME series at all there (I'm really starting to doubt Christina Norman being on this project now... more from her attitude and opinions than her ability. I know at least one major ME2 dev stated that he hadn't even played ME1 and yet was working on ME2, which I feel is a mistake when trying to so-called "improve" the next part in what is supposed to be a trilogy. If it were a standard sequel, not so much, but this was more the middle third of one long project.)

[quote]
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]

They said several times that the fate of The Council, Wrex and the human on Virmire would make huge differences in ME2. And the thing is, these are things that should have, particularly the former of them. But they barely made a dent, even when not focused on directly, with the former swept under the rug with a lame comment from Jacob to Shepard on Minuteman and the other two lame substitutions with next to no variation beyond some dialogue that I felt were an insult to the weight of my decision and the characters involved. The galaxy should have been a very different place overall regarding The Council choice and Tuchanka should have vastly different than just a near clone sitting on the throne with some slightly different ideas. No decisions had far-reaching consequences like BioWare claimed; they were all limited to their own little bubble of influence and that was it. Hell... there were more consequences within ME2 with things like Veetor and Kal'Reegar's fates than there were transferring to ME2 from the first game. The one that made me laugh (and cry) was when Casey Hudson brought up Conrad Verner as an example, and then in the actual game his integration was awful, buggy and screwed up.

I personally actually blame this on BioWare's choice to make ME2 so standalone, which has the default decisions come into play with these so-called major factors. I think they were too worried that newcomers would be too confused without foreknowledge of ME1, so anything that was even remotely important that could transfer from there was pushed as far into the background as possible and given as little variation or significance as possible. If BioWare had decided to make this a proper trilogy then I'm guessing these things would be more integral and important than they were, and it saddens me to already read that they're doing the same with ME3. I say "screw newcomers" it's their own damn fault if they're confused coming into the third part of a trilogy. Make the game for people who are already into things... Return of the Jedi and Return of the King weren't designed to hold the hands of newcomers, and when authors write multi-part novels they don't write later parts so that a newcomer can just come into things. This is supposed to be a trilogy, not three completely separate games vaguely linked.

And I didn't even go into the emails and news reports.

[quote]
[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.
[/quote]

And yet I generally consider it inferior to ME1 in almost every way.

[ccconda]

play mw2 or bad company 2 for a slick and fun weapon/armor/etc customization system. Thsoe two games have more rpg shooter elements in the inventory system than ME2 does

[uberdowzen]

Terror_K wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Once you're out of sight of your leaving point all you basically see is the same passing textures and/or lights beyond the elevator. All one needs to do is have this repeating until the loading is done with the minimum time synced up with the length of the news report or squad banter, then proceed to insert the destination that's been fully loaded in that time.

Is that actually how it works or just a guess? Because surely if it works like that the elevators should end as soon as the conversation is over.

Well, having Shepard actually say something about what was going on instead of being silent all the damn time would have been nice (though this is a problem with pretty much every N7 mission as well). Other than that I just feel that the devs for ME2 missed the point  with regards to what The Mako was good for in ME1. The Hammerhead is too flimsy and lacks punch, is too limited with weaponry and can't even independently turn its turret or zoom in any more. Seems like a big step back where you've sacrificed everything else for speed and maneuverability. And what's with the entire vehicle shaking around to simply scan something (in ME1 Shepard could just stand beside something and whisk an omni-tool over it without so much as a hiccup, but the Hammerhead becomes a diabetic on a sugar rush having a seizure just scanning something). On top of that, there's no proper exploration and every mission just felt like a overly designed level carved for the sake of your Hammerhead rather than a real world and turned the entire experience into a lame platform game with shooty bits. As the icing on the cake, there's absolutely no HUD whatsoever, so you can't even tell how damaged you are beyond being on fire and beeping... not that it matters when the vehicle has magical healing abilities given to it from pixie land.

And Sheperd said how much during the Mako parts of most of the missions? The Hammerhead appears crappier from a technical standpoint (weaker etc) but gameplay wise it's much better. Mako combat essentially involved zooming in on a target, firing a rocket, going back a few metres to avoid a rocket, fire another rocket, inch forward a bit to avoid another rock, rinse, repeat, cry. It wasn't exciting and it felt gamey. Hammerhead combat felt fast, furious and fun (although not being allowed to quicksave sucked). And I'm generally in favour of reduced HUDs, makes things more immersive.

Only the Spectre weapons or quest reward items weren't. Colossus armour (unless you did BDtS) was always a random drop or find. Many other items depended on licences, a factor that's completely missing from ME2 that I miss, though it doesn't need it in with its current weapon system (which I don't like).

Still, doesn't mean that it needed to be random or that you didn't omnigel 99% of the items anyway.

Some of the ME1 mods have (weirdly) become powers for the Soldier and Vanguard now of course. I would like to see the old synthetic and organic ones back, as well as the return of the (proper and working) radar (why did this go?!!) and Combat Optics, amongst a few other useful ones. The rest I'd make mods more in the Crysis style, including weapon-specific ones (mods that only work on sniper rifles, mods that only work on shotguns, etc.).

I suggested the scanning thing for mods because I feel ME3 needs a looting system back in some form, but suggested the idea of being able to simply buy the mods for those who don't want to scan, so either one can put in the effort for the reward or they can just pay credits to avoid the hassle. The idea wasn't that every single enemy would be able to be scanned... more like in ME2 where you scan the weapons: there's a random chance an enemy that falls will be able to be scanned, and in that case you get a random mod, which is uploaded to The Normandy database just like the weapons. You only need to scan one of them, ala the weapons, and then you can buy the upgrade options in stores for it and make the mod better.

While on the subject, I also want to see Biotic Amps and Omni-tools back as items as well.

What mods have become powers? Ammo have become powers but I can't think of any mods that have. I'll come back to the rest of your point at the end of the post but I do agree that Biotic Amps and Omni-tools should come back. It'd give the cool weapon feeling to all the classes.

Uh.... no. Aside from the Spectre gear (why, I feel I must add, I think was a bad move in ME1) everything else is pretty much a random drop. It wasn't always in the same place, most of the items could be modded to suit your preferences, some items are rarer than others, some you need a licence to even get, etc. If you opened a crate or killed an enemy at least you didn't know exactly what was there or what was to come. ME2 just has the weapons sitting there in the same spot in the same location Every. Damn. Time, with no way to customise them or mod them at all and nothing more than a bunch of linear upgrades you find or buy at the same location Every. Damn. Time. ME2's system wouldn't have been so shallow, boring and cringingly bad if it had just randomised things. I know in some cases it doesn't make much sense narrative wise (e.g. the collectors weapon on Horizon, the DLC weapons) but ME3 needs to get rid of this tedious way of giving us our items, as well as actually give us some more of them and not in such a limited fashion.

Hey, could go either way, I wouldn't mind.

I personally found most of the article to be media-spin BS, lame excuses and full on admissions of dumbing things down. There were some interesting points here and there, but overall it just proves even more to me that they made the wrong choices for the sake of appealing to a greater audience, oversimplified things and that there are people who perhaps shouldn't be working on the ME series at all there (I'm really starting to doubt Christina Norman being on this project now... more from her attitude and opinions than her ability. I know at least one major ME2 dev stated that he hadn't even played ME1 and yet was working on ME2, which I feel is a mistake when trying to so-called "improve" the next part in what is supposed to be a trilogy. If it were a standard sequel, not so much, but this was more the middle third of one long project.)

Who was the major dev who hadn't played ME1? The only people who I think need (I mean everyone probably should have) to play the original are the Project Director, Lead Designer, Art Director and the Lead Programmer.

They said several times that the fate of The Council, Wrex and the human on Virmire would make huge differences in ME2. And the thing is, these are things that should have, particularly the former of them. But they barely made a dent, even when not focused on directly, with the former swept under the rug with a lame comment from Jacob to Shepard on Minuteman and the other two lame substitutions with next to no variation beyond some dialogue that I felt were an insult to the weight of my decision and the characters involved. The galaxy should have been a very different place overall regarding The Council choice and Tuchanka should have vastly different than just a near clone sitting on the throne with some slightly different ideas. No decisions had far-reaching consequences like BioWare claimed; they were all limited to their own little bubble of influence and that was it. Hell... there were more consequences within ME2 with things like Veetor and Kal'Reegar's fates than there were transferring to ME2 from the first game. The one that made me laugh (and cry) was when Casey Hudson brought up Conrad Verner as an example, and then in the actual game his integration was awful, buggy and screwed up.

I personally actually blame this on BioWare's choice to make ME2 so standalone, which has the default decisions come into play with these so-called major factors. I think they were too worried that newcomers would be too confused without foreknowledge of ME1, so anything that was even remotely important that could transfer from there was pushed as far into the background as possible and given as little variation or significance as possible. If BioWare had decided to make this a proper trilogy then I'm guessing these things would be more integral and important than they were, and it saddens me to already read that they're doing the same with ME3. I say "screw newcomers" it's their own damn fault if they're confused coming into the third part of a trilogy. Make the game for people who are already into things... Return of the Jedi and Return of the King weren't designed to hold the hands of newcomers, and when authors write multi-part novels they don't write later parts so that a newcomer can just come into things. This is supposed to be a trilogy, not three completely separate games vaguely linked.

And I didn't even go into the emails and news reports.

I totally agree that some of these choices should've made bigger changes, although I think it was probably a mistake going in expecting them to. I don't really agree with your argument about save files though because a) the game does need to appeal to newcomers to a certain extent and the people who did lose their save games (for whatever reason) would get annoyed that because they made an honest mistake they're getting punished.

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.

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

And yet I generally consider it inferior to ME1 in almost every way.

Agree to disagree.

So I've been playing ME2 for the past few days with the vanguard I just finished up in ME1 and here's the changes I'd make for ME3:

• Ditch, or drastically improve planet scanning
• Create a special weapon selection screen rather than just using the standard interface
• Downplay the upgrade element (don't remove it though) and give it a special upgrade interface which shows how weapons advance etc (again rather than just using the standard interface)
• Stronger plot (almost a cert)
• Improve the levelling system (it's not very satisfying at all) specifically, remove the dead levels where you can't level up.
• Tie persuades to a power (I was thinking that they could do this Dragon Age style, so a basic persuade requires 1 point in your class power, a slightly harder one require 2 etc, in addition to requiring your paragon/renegade points to be at a certain point)
• Expand upon the current weapon system, allowing you to customise the look of weapons and install mods, that you either buy or find, at the start of the mission.
• Bring back Omnitools and Biotic amps (maybe just have it so that different amps provide bonuses to different powers)
• Helmet Toggle
• More sets of armor in the game rather than just DLC.

I reckon that's about it, if there's something I've forgotten I'll add it.

[Iakus]

uberdowzen wrote...

So I've been playing ME2 for the past few days with the vanguard I just finished up in ME1 and here's the changes I'd make for ME3:

• Ditch, or drastically improve planet scanning
  
• Create a special weapon selection screen rather than just using the standard interface
  
  
• Downplay the upgrade element (don't remove it though) and give it a special upgrade interface which shows how weapons advance etc (again rather than just using the standard interface)
  
  
• Stronger plot (almost a cert)
  
  
• Improve the levelling system (it's not very satisfying at all) specifically, remove the dead levels where you can't level up.
  
  
• Tie persuades to a power (I was thinking that they could do this Dragon Age style, so a basic persuade requires 1 point in your class power, a slightly harder one require 2 etc, in addition to requiring your paragon/renegade points to be at a certain point)
  
  
• Expand upon the current weapon system, allowing you to customise the look of weapons and install mods, that you either buy or find, at the start of the mission.
  
  
• Bring back Omnitools and Biotic amps (maybe just have it so that different amps provide bonuses to different powers)
  
  
• Helmet Toggle
  More sets of armor in the game rather than just DLC.

I reckon that's about it, if there's something I've forgotten I'll add it.

[*]

[*]That's...not a bad list, actually.  I no doubt feel more strongly about certain aspects of it than others, but it's definitely a good starting point.

Modifié par iakus, 13 mai 2010 - 05:26 .

[Sidney]

TJSolo wrote...

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.

ME2 doing away with the genocide that occurs in most RPG's is a great thing. The reward in both money and XP for wandering around and killing stuff is silly. In DAO I actively try to NOT do whatever it is I was sent to do on my mission until I've killed everything that moves on a map. There's no good reason to do a lot of the killing that I do but the system encourages it. ME2 allows me to focus on doing what I was sent to X to do and not worry about mopping up every straggler in the level and then ripping their boots off their dead corpses.

[KitsuneRommel]

uberdowzen wrote...

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.

Or it unlocked extra roleplaying options. Not all of them were threaths for more pay. Without the skill most of the peaceful solutions to quests are impossible and lot of the fun from Bioware games comes from lightside/darkside and paragon/renegade options. In ME2 you could 'redo' some of the persuasions but I can think of plenty where you couldn't (*cough* Morinth *cough*).

After spending points on lift (to unlock singluarity), singularity, intimidate, sniper rifle and spectre training (for unity) there's not many points left at low levels and with insanity I need those skills.

They use cover.They stay in cover until the fight was over.No problem.

I did one of the Geth Incursion quests last night where you come out of a science bunker and get ambushed by Geth snipers and rocket troops. Even though there's plenty of convenient cargo boxes lying around Kaidan gets himself killed almost immediately and Ashley soon after his Immunity ends. And of course when there is no cover they don't realize that simply moving 1 meter to the side would make the rockets miss.

Note: I'm not saying that the AI in ME2 is anything to cheer about either.

They dont really need cover
in Mass Effect.(ob,maybee garrus)

They do at lower levels.

[uberdowzen]

iakus wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

So I've been playing ME2 for the past few days with the vanguard I just finished up in ME1 and here's the changes I'd make for ME3:

• Ditch, or drastically improve planet scanning
  
• Create a special weapon selection screen rather than just using the standard interface
  
• Downplay the upgrade element (don't remove it though) and give it a special upgrade interface which shows how weapons advance etc (again rather than just using the standard interface)
  
• Stronger plot (almost a cert)
  
• Improve the levelling system (it's not very satisfying at all) specifically, remove the dead levels where you can't level up.
  
• Tie persuades to a power (I was thinking that they could do this Dragon Age style, so a basic persuade requires 1 point in your class power, a slightly harder one require 2 etc, in addition to requiring your paragon/renegade points to be at a certain point)
  
• Expand upon the current weapon system, allowing you to customise the look of weapons and install mods, that you either buy or find, at the start of the mission.
  
• Bring back Omnitools and Biotic amps (maybe just have it so that different amps provide bonuses to different powers)
  
• Helmet Toggle
  
• More sets of armor in the game rather than just DLC.

[/list]I reckon that's about it, if there's something I've forgotten I'll add it.

That's...not a bad list, actually.  I no doubt feel more strongly about certain aspects of it than others, but it's definitely a good starting point.

Thanks, which bits do you feel more strongly about?

[TJSolo]

Sidney wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

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.

ME2 doing away with the genocide that occurs in most RPG's is a great thing. The reward in both money and XP for wandering around and killing stuff is silly. In DAO I actively try to NOT do whatever it is I was sent to do on my mission until I've killed everything that moves on a map. There's no good reason to do a lot of the killing that I do but the system encourages it. ME2 allows me to focus on doing what I was sent to X to do and not worry about mopping up every straggler in the level and then ripping their boots off their dead corpses.

What are you talking about actively NOT trying to do whatever you should be doing? I typically run around to clear the map to see if there are any sidequests or hidden things to find like the Revenants, dragons, Gaxkang, arcane warrior spec, and stuff like that. I don't see how investigation outside of the main quest is a negative like the way some of you portray it. Just more exaggeration.
XP per kill does not make a player kill every thing everwhere, that is player choice. The ones that say they kill everything everywhere because of XP per kill are most likely just liars.
Besides the point I was making is that offering only XP per quest as a flat system is shallow. The depth RPers seek comes from having access to more ways to reward them at higher intervals such as perks, power points, and skill usage as added means to advance a character.

[KitsuneRommel]

iakus wrote...

Given that Bioware said that we should  "hold onto your save files" for ME2, and we should do the same for ME3 that this would be a trilogy of games to tell Shepard's story, that were told that some 700 choices are actually recorded in ME1, and what 1000(?), for ME2, yeah I'd say there should be more than a "slight shift" in the story. 

Frankly I'm not too fussed about that. They are setting themselves up to a logistical nightmare with all the variable elements for ME3. Most of the cameos were enough for me except Kaidan/Ashley. I just wanted to punch Ashley for being so thickheaded and yell "I DON'T WORK FOR CERBERUS!" Still, getting the extra few levels, paragon/renegade points and money was nice for your new game.

The Hammerhead is too flimsy and lacks punch, is too limited with
weaponry and can't even independently turn its turret or zoom in any
more.

Agree about the weaponry but I never had the problems with survivability. I'm a fan of avoidance as opposed to mitigation. Which works a lot better until the Geth learn to lead their aim (and even then you can avoid them with more changes in direction of movement).

[Massadonious1]

TJSolo wrote...
XP per kill does not make a player kill every thing everwhere, that is player choice. The ones that say they kill everything everywhere because of XP per kill are most likely just liars.

Or they play Borderlands.

[AlanC9]

TJSolo wrote...
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.

Fallout is based on a CRPG. Like I said, conversions from CRPG rulesets are propping up kill XP.

No edition of Champions I'm familiar with grants kill XP. Could you quote the relevant part of the rulebook and the edition? I've only got a 3rd edition handy.

I don't see a PnP game doing quest only xp that instantly levels the players up.

I'm not sure what you mean by instantly here. Champions 3rd ed, just because I have it at hand, says that at the end of the adventure the GM gives out experience points, which can then be spent -- though under special circumstances the GM can allow spending points during the session --say, if the player wants a radiation accident or some such. GURPS has the GM awarding character points at the end of each play session, not at the end of the adventure. I'd have to do some digging to get other rulesets out, but you'll find essentially the same rule in TORG, Paranoia, DragonQuest, Universe. .....

But this is all turning into a colossal waste of time. My point was that kill XP has only ever been used in a minority of PnP RPGs, and that percentage has been decreasing over time at designers go to better systems. While I suppose you might disagree with "better" there, we might as well debate the pros and cons of kill XP in a CRPG context.

[AlanC9]

TJSolo wrote...

XP per kill does not make a player kill every thing everwhere, that is player choice. The ones that say they kill everything everywhere because of XP per kill are most likely just liars.

The point is that they're rewarded for a choice that's irrational in roleplaying terms, not that anyone's forced into that choice.

Besides the point I was making is that offering only XP per quest as a flat system is shallow. The depth RPers seek comes from having access to more ways to reward them at higher intervals such as perks, power points, and skill usage as added means to advance a character.

Huh? You seem to be talking about different kinds of reward rather than different means of earning them. If the system uses perks, power points, and whatnot, they can be given out through quests as well.

[KitsuneRommel]

Of for ****s sake. Wrote a ten point bulletin on improvements I'd like to see in ME3 but than I accidentally pressed the page packwards and now it's lot. Maybe late then:



Highlights: Mako or Hammerhead back. Planetary exploration which had beautiful planetscapes but just too jaggy mountain ranges.Working inventory system. Greatly improved weapon modding (make the mods researchable instead of random drops. LESS WEAPONS but with visible differences. Same with armor obviously. Bio-Amp and Omni-Tool.

Please let Shepard hack/unlock doors still. Etc.

[AlanC9]

One other thing...

TJSolo wrote...
I don't see how investigation outside of the main quest is a negative like the way some of you portray it. Just more exaggeration.

In general, it's really bad form to assume that people don't mean what they're saying just because you don't understand it. Incredulous disbelief is another matter, of course.

Actually, I think there might be a deeper RPG design issue here. It sounds like you affirmatively like to have non-RP reasons for taking actions in the game world. Looking around to see what the level designers have hidden in various areas makes no sense from the character's perspective, only the player's.

This takes me back to the old BG1/ BG2 debate. Which you weren't around for, but it's late and I don't want to recap  that argument today

Catch you tomorrow.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

But this is all turning into a colossal waste of time. My point was that kill XP has only ever been used in a minority of PnP RPGs, and that percentage has been decreasing over time at designers go to better systems. While I suppose you might disagree with "better" there, we might as well debate the pros and cons of kill XP in a CRPG context.

After reading different ways to advance and reward players I am interested in combinations of per kill, per quest, and per use rewards. If you want to continue to use the term XP, it  is fine by me. Different games use different terms for the advancement points so in order to not mix up terminology lets stay with XP.

Combining the three leads varying ways a player can advance and customize a character. Implementing all three can lead to a very depth advancement system. Now if a game only used one form of  XP reward it would appear to be a step backwards because games are moving towards combinations of the three.

Yes there are better systems in use. Which just furthers my point that ME2 only having XP per mission is shallow because the outcome is very linear and binary.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

One other thing...

TJSolo wrote...
I don't see how investigation outside of the main quest is a negative like the way some of you portray it. Just more exaggeration.

In general, it's really bad form to assume that people don't mean what they're saying just because you don't understand it. Incredulous disbelief is another matter, of course.

Actually, I think there might be a deeper RPG design issue here. It sounds like you affirmatively like to have non-RP reasons for taking actions in the game world. Looking around to see what the level designers have hidden in various areas makes no sense from the character's perspective, only the player's.

This takes me back to the old BG1/ BG2 debate. Which you weren't around for, but it's late and I don't want to recap  that argument today

Catch you tomorrow.

Looking around a ruin, cavern, or other mysterious area makes no sense from the character perspective? If I am RPing a character you can damn well be sure the character is inquisitive.

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

XP per kill does not make a player kill every thing everwhere, that is player choice. The ones that say they kill everything everywhere because of XP per kill are most likely just liars.

Ok not EVERY player does that. Powergamers outnumber everyone else by quite a large margin.

There's no negatives on killing everything, Just the opposite. You get XP and loot. If ME1 had a spot with unlimited enemies you can be sure that would be taken advantage of.

Anyway I don't feel comfortable with rewarding people for mass murdering,.

[TJSolo]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

XP per kill does not make a player kill every thing everwhere, that is player choice. The ones that say they kill everything everywhere because of XP per kill are most likely just liars.

Ok not EVERY player does that. Powergamers outnumber everyone else by quite a large margin.

There's no negatives on killing everything, Just the opposite. You get XP and loot. If ME1 had a spot with unlimited enemies you can be sure that would be taken advantage of.

Anyway I don't feel comfortable with rewarding people for mass murdering,.

Ugh I hate this argument but it really fits here.

It's a game.

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

After reading different ways to advance and reward players I am interested in combinations of per kill, per quest, and per use rewards. If you want to continue to use the term XP, it  is fine by me. Different games use different terms for the advancement points so in order to not mix up terminology lets stay with XP.

That's a good idea in general. If the mission is getting into a small starship and placing a bomb there you could have a gun through approach, persuasion (lie) approach and a stealth approach, Most likely I'd give more XP for those non-lethal approaches but when you kill them all you get some random gear.

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

Ugh I hate this argument but it really fits here.

It's a game.

If it were "just a game" I wouldn't bother spending time on a forum.

Edit: I'm not trying to be anal with you. I understand that you prefer ME1 to ME2 and I do love some of the things in ME1 that they took out from ME2. I'm REALLY hoping ME3 will have an inventory (improved a LOT), planetary exploration with Mako/Hammerhead, Better weapon customization but with the ME2 weapon style, etc.

I think what causes most of the posts here is people who are disappointed with ME2 tend to paint ME2 fans as people who only care about 'SPLOSHIONS and HEADSHOTS which makes me (and plenty others) quite annoyed especially when some of them have no idea what RPGs are about (or they want every game to be an interactive movie).

I've played RPGs and CRPGs for decades and back then there were no sploshions or headshots. I'm sure games like Dungeon Master or Chaos Strikes Back would make many of the new generation of players run back to their mommies.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 13 mai 2010 - 06:41 .

[TJSolo]

That would be why I didn't say "just a game". My point is you throwing around mass murder as a reason for not wanting xp per kill is a bit much.

No matter how you look at it both games reward you for decimating the forces that oppose you. It is not like you can walk into a ME2 mission and complete it without clearing the entire area.

[Dick Delaware]

"Mass murder" or not, whatever. The point is that only having XP per kill opens the door for exploits with areas that have unlimited XP (remember those creatures in Tatooine in KotOR?) and it gives incentives for taking the run-and-gun approach instead of looking for stealthy/deceptive/diplomatic alternatives or a mix of those approaches.



So yeah, more diplomatic solutions for ME3. Both ME1 and ME2 were pretty bad at this, ME1 slightly less so.

[KitsuneRommel]

TJSolo wrote...

No matter how you look at it both games reward you for decimating the forces that oppose you. It is not like you can walk into a ME2 mission and complete it without clearing the entire area.

True. ME2 sucks in that particular case. Actually both games are pretty horrible at that.

Edit: These conversations would be a lot more civil if both sides would stop using hyperboles and ad hominems just to rile the other "side" up. I know I tend to do that too when I'm feeling insulted.

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 13 mai 2010 - 06:55 .