874 réponses à ce sujet

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Koralis wrote...

You're assuming that they can be moved.  If they're designed to seal up after removal, then you can't reinstall them.  Yes, I agree in theory.  In practice, they don't let you unload a weapon except to add more "clip"

Unless every weapons engineer in the future is a complete idiot (which they might be, considering how they never thought that allowing thermal clips to cool down might be a good idea), the maximum number of clips you possibly couldn't remove would be one - and even that would be pushing it.

More to the point, even if you could simply explain away the inability to share ammo between weapons (which makes about as much sense as this comparison), there is no possible reason why every clip you pick up adds ammo to every weapon instead of filling up the one you actually use first.

As a point of fact, I don't think it unreasonable for Shep to not load all his extra thermal clips into irremovable ammo storage units in weapons that he would never really use if he had that ammo available for another weapon. Just saying.

Oh! New, unrelated thought:

If the thermal sinks are actually loaded in 'clip' form (like what they appear to be in when picked up), why didn't the weapon designers of the future make weapons capable of auto-cycling the sinks? 

Wouldn't it make more sense? It would allow a near-constant rate of fire, with only a slight delay between sinks and without a need to waste time going in and out of cover or moving your sights off the target. As a bonus, you could cycle them into some sort of external cooling receptacle for later re-use.

Probably would start less fires that way.

People seriosuly need to stop debating on the realism feasibility of the weapons and just accept that the whole weapon cooling thing is just fluff text put in as an explanation for the change. It's an exaplanation, that doesn't mean it's sensible. It's sci fi, it's NOT supposed to make sense, it's fiction lumped together with fancy scientific terminology, not something that could "possibly be real in future"

[psyman]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

No, I actually don't doubt that some people prefer the old inventory system to none. That's their onus, I suppose, but it doesn't mean it A) makes sense, or is a good idea. Like it's been said, sacred cows. Why can't there be an RPG with no inventory system? Why can't there be an RPG without many of what are seen as RPG necessities, in fact? Many of the people kvetching about ME2 being "dumbed down" have very shallow ideas about what an RPG is to begin with.

That's because there was an existing inventory system in ME1. It simply needed to be improved and the loot toned down and diversified. If ME1 had no inventory, then I think there would be far fewer complaints about it's complete removal in ME2.

Even a "good" inventory system brings with it a lot of, like I said, "ritual monotony." I have to sort, figure what's worth keeping and what's not, and repeat this ad nauseum as my space continually runs out. However, as far as necessary evils go, I liked Dragon Age's. I could immediately consign merchant trash to the Junk tab and sell it all wholesale at the next merchant I could meet up with. But that's in a fantasy setting where bartering like that makes far more sense than in a futurebound science fiction universe.

I must say that I've spent a whole lot more time actually playing Mass Effect 2 than I have Dragon Age, so far.

In a good inventory that can add depth and be addictive and satisfying. I don't enjoy micro-managing, but I do love getting shiny new loot, customizing my characters' load-out and going to shops. Truth be told, I actually don't mind the removal of the portable inventory in ME2. It's the drastic downsizing of the amount of loot and customization that bothers me.

[WillieStyle]

I understand the appeal of loot. I don't find it appealing but I understand. Could someone explain to me where all this "customization" is in RPGs?



Say I'm playing a Rogue in Dragon Age, there is an optimal piece of armor (Shadow of the Empire -> Felon's Coat) that I ALWAYS wear. There are optimal daggers that I always use (Rose's Thorn and Edge/Fang). The rest of the loot amounts to: crap I wear until I can get the good stuff, or crap I vendor so I can buy the good stuff. Why do I need to sift through 27 shortswords of suck just to get enough gold to buy what I really want?

Similarly, in ME1 I always used Collossus armor. The loot system involved wearing crap until I got the proper license and then sifting through more crap until Collossus dropped. Then I'd upgrade my Collussus VII with Collossus VIII armor. Hardly what I'd call fun.

Frankly, I'm glad ME2 did away with all that.

[Terror_K]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I still laugh at the suggestion that the ammo system forces you to use multiple weapons. I've only once in 3 playthroughs come close to running out of ammo for a weapon and been forced to use something other than my main weapon choice. So if the intent of the ammo system is to make you use multiple weapons, then it's an utter failure.

That's not to say I dislike the ammo system. I simply don't care about it. It adds nothing to the game, and only rarely takes anything anyway (there's only once where I've had to scour an area for clips.)

I actually don't like that it forces me to use guns I don't want to, which is what I don't think an RPG should do really. I liked that in the original game I could just focus on using one, maybe two weapons. I was a big fan of the Pistol as my primary with Sniper Rifle as my long-distance secondary when I want to take out an enemy from far off or simply do buttloads more damage to a bigger enemy. I don't like that I'm forced into using guns I don't even like and/or want to save for a different character to use in ME2. I'd at least like the option to leave these guns behind to get more clips for the ones I do want. Just because a Vanguard can use a shotgun doesn't mean I want to. A fighter in DAO can use a two-handed battleaxe but that doesn't mean if I like longswords I should be forced into using one, especially if it doesn't support my playstyle. In fact, why not give me the option to swap the shottie out for the other pistol available to me. When things are forced upon you and not your choice and there's no visible or logical reason as to why, it's frustrating and not fun.

WillieStyle wrote...

I understand the appeal of loot. I don't find it appealing but I understand. Could someone explain to me where all this "customization" is in RPGs?

Say I'm playing a Rogue in Dragon Age, there is an optimal piece of armor (Shadow of the Empire -> Felon's Coat) that I ALWAYS wear. There are optimal daggers that I always use (Rose's Thorn and Edge/Fang). The rest of the loot amounts to: crap I wear until I can get the good stuff, or crap I vendor so I can buy the good stuff. Why do I need to sift through 27 shortswords of suck just to get enough gold to buy what I really want?
Similarly, in ME1 I always used Collossus armor. The loot system involved wearing crap until I got the proper license and then sifting through more crap until Collossus dropped. Then I'd upgrade my Collussus VII with Collossus VIII armor. Hardly what I'd call fun.
Frankly, I'm glad ME2 did away with all that.

Because too often players want instant gratification instead of actually having to work for good items these days. You should have to work hard to afford or attain the best stuff, and sifting through crap is the price you pay to get it. There should be no reward without effort. DAO only really fails in the loot department because pretty much all the best items are buy items or found in the same place. ME1 failed because there were single God items for all classes that were the one and only Alpha and Omega of all items, with the weapons easy to find and purchase at that. Both games would benefit more from a Diablo II style of items and/or inventory whereby you can only get the best items through random chance or luck, boosted a little but by bosses with higher chances of good drops and guaranteed rares, etc. That's why Diablo II is pretty much the king of the looting system.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Because too often players want instant gratification instead of actually having to work for good items these days. You should have to work hard to afford or attain the best stuff, and sifting through crap is the price you pay to get it. There should be no reward without effort. DAO only really fails in the loot department because pretty much all the best items are buy items or found in the same place. ME1 failed because there were single God items for all classes that were the one and only Alpha and Omega of all items, with the weapons easy to find and purchase at that. Both games would benefit more from a Diablo II style of items and/or inventory whereby you can only get the best items through random chance or luck, boosted a little but by bosses with higher chances of good drops and guaranteed rares, etc. That's why Diablo II is pretty much the king of the looting system.

no you shouldn't have to, Terror. for a man who loves RPGs you sure as hell don't know what the term means - why would a SPECTRE and highly trained N7 soldier not be able to get hold of decent armour from the start? (let alone not be able to hit a barn door from 20 paces - as happened in me1). me2's system was a lot better in this regard.

mass effect is unlike most rpgs because you roleplay shepard, a semi-predefined character. he is already a known figure, with a skillset. what you should be doing is being given the very best equipment possible to help you do what you are asked - the impossible (stopping saren/the collectors/the reapers).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 15 mars 2010 - 09:25 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

no you shouldn't have to, Terror. for a man who loves RPGs you sure as hell don't know what the term means - why would a SPECTRE and highly trained N7 soldier not be able to get hold of decent armour from the start? (let alone not be able to hit a barn door from 20 paces - as happened in me1). me2's system was a lot better in this regard.

Because there's nowhere really left to grow if you can get the really good stuff so easily and so early. Mass Effect is different than most RPGs because you start off as somebody who's awesome from the start narrative wise while most RPGs have to starting off as a nobody and progressing. If you treat the gameplay aspects like the narrative, Shepard won't really have anywhere to go and won't be able to grow, so you have to be able to separate that aspect and push it aside, just as you do with leveling and stats since Shepard isn't really thinking "I can't wait to level-up to level 10 and unlock a new ability, etc." all the time. I know some people blame the set-up for this issue, but one still needs a way to grow and advance.

[JKoopman]

Why do I have to pay for fuel and probes in ME2? Shouldn't that be covered by the Illusive Man's bottomless pockets? You're telling me he's willing to spend billions reviving me and rebuilding my ship but them balks at a few thousand extra for a full tank of gas? Why do I have to scour the galaxy mining minerals from planets just to research and install a weapon upgrade? You're telling me I can't just buy some scrap metal and circuit boards at a shop somewhere?

Some game mechanics simply can't be rationalized in terms of what's "realistic". Inventory customization and loot have been staples of RPGs for ages. It's the accepted method for building and improving your character. If you start with the best weapons and armor handed to you from the beginning, where's the fun in that? What's left to improve?

Ultimately, that was one of my problems with ME2. I didn't feel like I was improving or progressing my character at all throughout the game. I literally used the same weapon and the same armor from lvl 1 to lvl 30. While ME1's loot system may have had it's problems, you can't say that ME2's polar opposite approach to design is perfect either.

Modifié par JKoopman, 15 mars 2010 - 09:39 .

[JKoopman]

On an unrelated note, I wish people would stop with all the console bashing and "console gamers can't handle complex games" crap. I've been one of the most vocal critics of the changes in ME2, and I played both games on my Xbox. Not every console gamer is some drooling Halo frat boy...

[psyman]

WillieStyle wrote...

I understand the appeal of loot. I don't find it appealing but I understand. Could someone explain to me where all this "customization" is in RPGs?

Say I'm playing a Rogue in Dragon Age, there is an optimal piece of armor (Shadow of the Empire -> Felon's Coat) that I ALWAYS wear. There are optimal daggers that I always use (Rose's Thorn and Edge/Fang). The rest of the loot amounts to: crap I wear until I can get the good stuff, or crap I vendor so I can buy the good stuff. Why do I need to sift through 27 shortswords of suck just to get enough gold to buy what I really want?
Similarly, in ME1 I always used Collossus armor. The loot system involved wearing crap until I got the proper license and then sifting through more crap until Collossus dropped. Then I'd upgrade my Collussus VII with Collossus VIII armor. Hardly what I'd call fun.
Frankly, I'm glad ME2 did away with all that.

I think we can all agree that ME1 was absolutely overloaded with junk thrown at you way too often. My ideal system would be the current style of gear in ME2 ie. with differen bonuses for different playstyles, rather than a linear progression of stats, plus the armour, omni and bio amps from ME1 stripped of their 1-10 levels (thus cutting out a lot of junk). I think this would achieve a great balance between the two games; not too much, not too little.

I really like the idea of manufacturers and licenses, they're quite interesting, particularly ones like Serrice Council who only sell to experienced biotics. It's pretty cool and I hope ME3 expands on the idea.

Modifié par wierzbowski88, 15 mars 2010 - 09:49 .

[Vaeliorin]

Terror_K wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I still laugh at the suggestion that the ammo system forces you to use multiple weapons. I've only once in 3 playthroughs come close to running out of ammo for a weapon and been forced to use something other than my main weapon choice. So if the intent of the ammo system is to make you use multiple weapons, then it's an utter failure.

That's not to say I dislike the ammo system. I simply don't care about it. It adds nothing to the game, and only rarely takes anything anyway (there's only once where I've had to scour an area for clips.)

I actually don't like that it forces me to use guns I don't want to, which is what I don't think an RPG should do really. I liked that in the original game I could just focus on using one, maybe two weapons. I was a big fan of the Pistol as my primary with Sniper Rifle as my long-distance secondary when I want to take out an enemy from far off or simply do buttloads more damage to a bigger enemy. I don't like that I'm forced into using guns I don't even like and/or want to save for a different character to use in ME2. I'd at least like the option to leave these guns behind to get more clips for the ones I do want. Just because a Vanguard can use a shotgun doesn't mean I want to. A fighter in DAO can use a two-handed battleaxe but that doesn't mean if I like longswords I should be forced into using one, especially if it doesn't support my playstyle. In fact, why not give me the option to swap the shottie out for the other pistol available to me. When things are forced upon you and not your choice and there's no visible or logical reason as to why, it's frustrating and not fun.

My point was that it doesn't force you to use guns you don't want to (well, with the possible exception of if you want to use the heavy pistol...it's ridiculous how little ammo the Carnifex has.)  My first playthrough (sentinel) I only used the SMG, until I picked up assault rifles, and then I just used assault rifles.  My second playthrough (infiltrator) I just used the sniper the vast majority of the time (I used the SMG to strip shields from enemies that had shields+armor+health.)  My third playthrough (Vanguard) I just used the shotgun.  My current playthrough (Adept) is using an SMG, but as soon as I can, I'll switch to AR, and be done with it.

Admittedly, I still don't get the whole concept that which guns you can use is tied to your class (especially with the "Shepard's special ops" argument that gets thrown around so much.)  I also dislike how often cutscenes show Shepard with an AR, even when he can't use one.  It almost seems you're better off picking classes in ME based upon what weapon you want to use instead of what powers you want to have.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

no you shouldn't have to, Terror. for a man who loves RPGs you sure as hell don't know what the term means - why would a SPECTRE and highly trained N7 soldier not be able to get hold of decent armour from the start? (let alone not be able to hit a barn door from 20 paces - as happened in me1). me2's system was a lot better in this regard.

Because there's nowhere really left to grow if you can get the really good stuff so easily and so early. Mass Effect is different than most RPGs because you start off as somebody who's awesome from the start narrative wise while most RPGs have to starting off as a nobody and progressing. If you treat the gameplay aspects like the narrative, Shepard won't really have anywhere to go and won't be able to grow, so you have to be able to separate that aspect and push it aside, just as you do with leveling and stats since Shepard isn't really thinking "I can't wait to level-up to level 10 and unlock a new ability, etc." all the time. I know some people blame the set-up for this issue, but one still needs a way to grow and advance.

you can "grow" and advance through character interaction and story progression, after all in real-life you don't get xp/skill points do you? plus the way me2 handled upgrades based on refinements of technology and weapo add-ons was more realistic. you can start off having the council's best gear, but out in the big bad galaxy there's bound to be plenty of exotic technologies that are better, let alone reaper/collector tech that you can recover and reverse-engineer. it may not be the "traditional" rpg-type growth, but it's still there and fits the nature of the game/character much better.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 15 mars 2010 - 09:55 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

you can "grow" and advance through character interaction and story progression, after all in real-life you don't get xp/skill points do you? it may not be the "traditional" rpg-type growth, but it's still there and fits the nature of the game/character much better.

If that happened to ME3, then I'd just throw the game away and not play it, or simply not get it in the first place. Without some form of statistical character progression you don't have an RPG: you simply have a story-driven action game. That's an unsatisfactory answer, and I'd be willing to bet most RPG fans would feel the same way... even the ones who generally disagree with me about ME2 in general. If the only "growth" was through advancing the story and there was no way to gain experience and increase your abilities and build your character, then it would be an utter failure as far as I'm concerned.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 mars 2010 - 10:00 .

[Murmillos]

Actully, chefs do "grow" with better culinary tools as they get better.

Sure you could provide a novice cook $8000 worth of cooking knifes and good goods, but unless he is a master with them, most of it would go to waste. And while there is no literal skill points that makes my cooking better, if I'm good at it, and remember what I did which made a good dish, then you can say, I got awarded skill points.

And race car drivers. No body starts out racing for F1 or Nascar on their first go. You start off small and then work your way up. Driving better cars as you get better - or prove that you are better.

But ok.. Shepard is N7 - he should have near the best gear. But in ME2, its already proven that his best gear can still be improved by 50%, 10% at a time. Now while they there is nothing wrong with that, they completely removed the loot aspect.

You know, for all the classes that uses SMG's.. how awesome was it to get the Tempest. It felt great right? That was LOOT!

Now, imagine there are no more additional weapons then to what there is (not counting DLC's), and instead of finding the generic "+10% damage" upgrades, each weapon has its own better weapon out there to find. You first have the
Avenger-a, and then later randomly, you find Avenger-b, and then later Avenger-c and so forth.
Also, you continue to find weapons -a thru -d, even if you don't use it, the squad mates who do still get upgrades.

Continue to imagine that happening every level, but only 1, 2.. maybe even 3 times depending on the party make up - per major level, maybe only once for every minor level - either way, somebody is coming out of it with an upgraded weapon (and even armor piece.)

Having 1-3 upgrades per level would have been rewarding, realistic, not over-cumbersome and wouldn't bogging down the game play.

Plus, as the final note, once you come back from the mission; everybody whom is using a weapon gets auto upgraded to the better version. So if you leave with M-6-b, come back with M-6-c, everybody equipped with the M6 auto upgrade to the -c version.

What we wanted was a better polished loot/inventory system. Less manufactures, less generic weapons, less upgrades. We do like loot, just not the glut of the ME1 system. Simple, manageable & rewarding. THAT is what we wanted.

Modifié par Murmillos, 15 mars 2010 - 10:39 .

[rastakore]

yoda23 wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

http://img46.imagesh...entation23.jpg/

This is something more along the lines of what I'd like to have seen from ME2: so we can actually see the weapons various stats and not just get a vague blurb about the weapon. For ME3 I'd like to see something closer to this along with introducing more weapons of each type in the form of manufacturers.

I also hope they bring back the Manufacturers, perhaps along with quests relating to them as well, but at the same time, I hope they do it in a way that I still get attached to certain weapons, I didn't really feel attached much at all to any one weapon in ME1

+1

I support this post as well!
Seeing the difference between all the weapons is a must to help you decide what is the best for each situation, and by the way you should be able to switch to whatever weapon you have availiable, altough it's  less realistic it adds a whole new layer of fun and strategy to the combat.
The upgrade system showed in this picture also seems to work better than having all the upgrades shoved in one menu for never to be seen again. Really whats the poing in seing all the upgrades you have in one massive list? That's the same mistake as the inventory from ME1 but this time around you don't need to see it. Having the upgrades reflected in the weapon stats gives you a feel of progression and power.
So keep the unique weapons from ME2 (altough more variety wouldn't hurt), bring back the stats from ME1 and make a hybrid upgrade system between the both. That's my two cents.

Modifié par rastakore, 15 mars 2010 - 04:48 .

[Sirsmirkalot]

So...why did I post the slides at all? I still think they are useful. I figured fans would want to read them, and would get some good information out of them. I am always trying to lean on the side of giving you guys more information, and trusting that you will assume better rather then worse when some of that information is missing!

It's all forgiven, since you have a 2-handed warrior. Us 2-handed warriors need to stick together!

[Braag]

Well that was... interesting. I hope they keep the awesome gunplay from ME2 to ME3 because ME1 wasn't nearly as fun. As for richer RPG elements, I'm interested to see what they will do with that. I just hope it wont be bunch of half a**ed RPG elements like in ME1 which were there for the sake of having RPG elements.

Modifié par Braag, 15 mars 2010 - 03:47 .

[baller7345]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

you can "grow" and advance through character interaction and story progression, after all in real-life you don't get xp/skill points do you? it may not be the "traditional" rpg-type growth, but it's still there and fits the nature of the game/character much better.

If that happened to ME3, then I'd just throw the game away and not play it, or simply not get it in the first place. Without some form of statistical character progression you don't have an RPG: you simply have a story-driven action game. That's an unsatisfactory answer, and I'd be willing to bet most RPG fans would feel the same way... even the ones who generally disagree with me about ME2 in general. If the only "growth" was through advancing the story and there was no way to gain experience and increase your abilities and build your character, then it would be an utter failure as far as I'm concerned.

What do you think about table top RPG's that stress story over skill progression and in some cases have no skills at all.  Are these not RPG's.  If they managed to make you advance the story through your character and the actions you chose then it could very much be an RPG.  The problem with the genre as it stands today is that people want to give it a set definition and that just doesn't work with RPG's because the genre itself isn't a set definition.

I highly doubt that they will do away with stastical growth in Mass Effect though because while I think it can and would work with some games it wouldn't fit with the Mass Effect feel that has been put into place by the first two games.

[Vena_86]

I think the reason why so many people here don't understand the value of a good looting system is simply because they never experienced it.

ME1s looting system is flawed.
Dragon Ages looting system is flawed, not interesting
ME2s looting system sucks

Thats all BioWare games and obviously BioWare struggles with that aspect.
If inventory and loot is done right then that alone can make even the simplest game addicting and fun.
Diablo 2 has it right, Blizzard is carefully making sure that it will be right for Diablo 3 as they know how it is a major part when it comes to lasting appeal and addicting players to their game.

The first Dungeon Siege was so incredible simple gameplay wise and so dull story wise. But still I played through it multiple times because of the grafics and atmosphear and mostly because of the looting and inventory system. Dungen Siege improves the gameplay and story alot but goes too far with the looting system (too many items with good bonuses right from the start) that overall it is less fun despite the logic improvements.

Then the is Dawn of War 2 which kind of is an RTS but the singleplayer immensly profits from a looting and equipment system which pretty much is the only interesting thing about it. There is no tons of crap loot and pretty much everything can be used and looks great on the character -> rewarding visual and statistical character growth.

A GOOD looting system would benefit ME3 alot specially if there are optional automatisms for the hyper active gamers. ME1s system wasnt good, ME2s system is less annoying but also less rewarding and overall a lesser experience.

Modifié par Vena_86, 15 mars 2010 - 05:03 .

[John Locke N7]

Christina Norman wrote...

CmdrFenix83 wrote...

The shooter mechanics in ME1 were ridiculous early in the game.  Yeah, they exaggerated the assault rifle accuracy issue, but not by much.  

The honest to goodness truth is, I fired up my ME1 dev build, started recording in fraps, and just played the first fight on eden prime. That's how that video got made. I wasn't trying to ham it up to make the assault rifle look extra terrible. That's what it's like. Maybe my aiming skills aren't super awesome, but I'd say they are average +! It's hard to aim when your reticle is so wide.

I feel a huge need to respond to this, as useing the first banshie assualt rifle for the first time is one of my most prominent memorys. i had at the time never realy played to much variety in RPGs (and only ever western ones, x-play mental conditionaing...) and the first time i fired that thing continuasly and the recticle widen, i got chills of enjoyment. the thought rushed through my head of good 'ol lvl one equipment! which means man, i cant wait for the feeling of progress of getting better guns. I quite enjoyed firing my assauly rifle in bursts and waiting for the recticle drop to then fire again. sorting through hundreds of guns through that inventory was well worth the pay off, and i never hated it because i counlt see how it could be any different.
 
When i first heard (19 guns in mass effect 2) i scratched my head raw. the first thing that came to mind was left 4 deads "21 weapons" which realy there was 4, they just counted propain tank, gasoline tank, oxyigen tank, turret, A-seda-lean-tank (acualy welded before with them, dint tell you how to spell it, just to weld) molys and pipe bombs, none of these to me are "guns" guns are almost extensions of me,not somthing i found on the ground. and low and behold, there where heavy weapons.... 9 out of the 19 weapons you only use once! i still feal the staple of elder scrolls, where i lvl up i have acces to new weapons to find and get as loot, and this happens every 5 to 10 lvls mabye 10 times, which lead to lots of equipment weapons AND armor wise, not to mention uniqe weapons, mass effect 1 had that. where in elder scrolls i gota choose between damage and the rate of my swing/the weight of my weapons, in mass effect 1 i was choosing between damage/ accuracy. 

I can still remember now the name of the 2 companys, haliant and armax, the first being the more damaging companys, and the secound being the more accurate. just be glad im not holding you to a borderlands standerd, holy dangle, 17million legit guns, no useless propain tanks. also skill trees for each weapons was also amazingly great, inproveing performance in the weapons.

anyway, im just saying that crappy weapons at the beggining are most certainly an RPG staple in my mind,and whenever i start up a new rpg, i cant wait to see the crappy rusy nail it gives me at the start.  and i would hate for you to not think so aswell, or to think that the way weapons where handled in ME 1 was bad. mass effects 2 handeling of weapons was just plain bad, 3 assault rifles total? and that it? i dont even feal that one is different than the other. there all "pieces of volus crap" if you ask me. but thank jangle your adding "more RPG elements" into ME 3, and by more RPG elements, i hope you mean crapy starter weapons, and awesome end game weapons. the stuff inbetween is most important aswell. also the looting process of getting these things is key. anway, i hope this helps you understand my boat take, and you when making ME 3. not like... make it this was... but my personal gameplay likes and dislikes to be inside your head when developing.

look at all this sexy refining! also i made a thread of this.

Modifié par John Locke N7, 15 mars 2010 - 05:43 .

[Koralis]

CatatonicMan wrote...
More to the point, even if you could simply explain away the inability to share ammo between weapons (which makes about as much sense as this comparison), there is no possible reason why every clip you pick up adds ammo to every weapon instead of filling up the one you actually use first.

*sigh* See?  You didn't understand what I wrote previously at all.

Picking up a clip doesn't add ammo to every weapon.  It shows you the maximum number of shots that weapon could take if you used all of your unused clips on that weapon.  If does this for every weapon.   As you use up clips, the ammo "mysteriously" vanishes from the weapons that you're not using.

That's "virtual" ammo that you're looking at... a "what if."  At the point you get down to no spare clips, you're looking at the ACTUAL number of shots left for each weapon.

[EternalWolfe]

Koralis wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...
More to the point, even if you could simply explain away the inability to share ammo between weapons (which makes about as much sense as this comparison), there is no possible reason why every clip you pick up adds ammo to every weapon instead of filling up the one you actually use first.

*sigh* See?  You didn't understand what I wrote previously at all.

Picking up a clip doesn't add ammo to every weapon.  It shows you the maximum number of shots that weapon could take if you used all of your unused clips on that weapon.  If does this for every weapon.   As you use up clips, the ammo "mysteriously" vanishes from the weapons that you're not using.

That's "virtual" ammo that you're looking at... a "what if."  At the point you get down to no spare clips, you're looking at the ACTUAL number of shots left for each weapon.

No it doesn't.  I can use everyshot in my sniper rifle, shotgun, and pistol, and still have max ammo leftover for my assault rifle.  I don't lose any ammo at all for using another weapon and using up 'spare' clips - I still have the maximum for that gun.  What your describing would require all my guns to have only their current clip left, if I used up all my sniper shots.

[Koralis]

rastakore wrote...
Seeing the difference between all the weapons is a must to help you decide what is the best for each situation, and by the way you should be able to switch to whatever weapon you have availiable, altough it's  less realistic it adds a whole new layer of fun and strategy to the combat.

I'd rather a compromise than having access to everything... I think you should get to pick 3 guns to bring.  If 2 of those are sniper rifles, and the third is Caine, then hey, that's your call!

And yes... customization of the guns before you leave the ship.  Gun and armor mods were the best thing about ME1... I can't believe that BioWare junked them.

[M 3 i m 0 n]

Really?

[Drakron]

Koralis wrote...
Picking up a clip doesn't add ammo to every weapon. 

Loading a save does.