874 réponses à ce sujet

[Inverness Moon]

 

JKoopman wrote...
It's interesting, but the presentation really didn't do much in the way of "explaining" why the changes were made so much as it did reinforcing what everyone has been saying since Day 1; namely that ME2 was designed from the ground up first and foremost as a shooter and that combat was the primary focus of development.
Some of the explanations and rationalizations are oversimplified to the point of being downright insulting as well. For example, the Assault Rifle Accuracy video that was supposed to rationalize the switch from stat-based aiming to traditional shooter mechanics shows a player running around outside of cover spastically spraying rounds from an AR without even bothering to aim. Of course accuracy is going to be lousy when you do everything possible to make it so! If that same player were to hunker down behind some cover and use weapon zoom to aim like you're supposed to the video would've shown that there was nothing wrong with weapon mechanics in ME1, so instead they intentionally inflated the "issue" to make their case. That seems rather dishonest.
Another example is the inventory rationalization. While it's true that an ME1-style inventory with 12 characters instead of 6 may have been too complex for it's own good, she offers no explanation for why the inventory system wasn't simply tweaked or limited to Shepard only. Instead the only rationalization provided is "Inventory needs to be simpler! What could be simpler than NO INVENTORY?" That's it? That's all the explanation we get for such a controversial redesign?
Very little in that presentation does anything to explain the "all or nothing" approach BioWare took with tweaking (read: removing) features from ME1. Instead it uses flagrant exaggerations and over-simplifications to make it's case and selectively ignores the real criticisms.
Ironic that the presentation meant to explain the over-simplification of ME2 is itself over-simplified.

Firstly, BioWare is inexperienced when it comes to shooters. This means that they would logically have to spend more time developing the shooter aspect if they want to bring it up to the level of other shooters. That does not mean it was their only focus, or that the shooter aspect is more important than the other parts of the game.
The assault rifle accuracy video demonstrates how unrealisticly wide the cone of fire is when not aiming. I can not imagine any assault rifle that exists today that would fire in that manner when you're firing from the hip, even if your hands were made of jelly.
As for inventory, in ME1 I didn't like managing my own weapons any more than I liked managing them for each squad member. It was completely distracting to be often checking my loot for better stuff or certain upgrades.

Orkboy wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...
I have to laugh at the slide with "Even I don't know what all this stuff is." That is so utterly pathetic. Mass Effect had very few variables to begin with and on that levelup screen not only the names explain them selfs, also you get short, simple descriptions too everything. 
Seriously, that from a lead designer from the LEADING roleplay developer is so wrong.

Glad i'm not the only one that thinks that.
I mean come on, she worked on the game and she doesn't understand such a simple thing.
It's pathetically easy to work out what everything does on the ME1 levelup screen.
If she really can't get it, then she has no right being a part of the dev team.

She is clearly not speaking from her own perspective. Do you hate ME2 so much that you can't even recognize what she is trying to say with that quote? Do not take it so literally.

slyguy07 wrote...
Only the ME2 fanboys are the ones I have seen that like the dull and simple affair about 3 weapons per class.

You're going somewhere that you shouldn't be.

M 3 i m 0 n wrote...

 Really?

Who are you to criticize BioWare's game development process? People who quote this slide don't seem to understand the idea of making that part of the game fun on its own. BioWare is obviously not experienced with shooters, meaning if they want to make that part fun then they need to invest more time in it. They did so and ME2 turned out excellently in that area. As for the RPG aspects, I like Mass Effect because of the story and universe, not because I could micromanage the inventory of myself and my squad members in ME1.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 15 mars 2010 - 07:48 .

[RighteousRage]

I think the funniest part about all these design slides is that they apparently went through a complex process to produce shooter gameplay that's essentially Gears of War but with fewer features, as if they needed to test this thoroughly to find out if it could possibly work or something. If there's no need to reinvent the wheel, why did they do it?

[Inverness Moon]

RighteousRage wrote...

I think the funniest part about all these design slides is that they apparently went through a complex process to produce shooter gameplay that's essentially Gears of War but with fewer features, as if they needed to test this thoroughly to find out if it could possibly work or something. If there's no need to reinvent the wheel, why did they do it?

Coincidence. They where making something to fit the design idea they had in mind for ME2. That it came out like GoW (something I have never played) is likely a coincidence. You seem to imply that they should have just directly copied what another game did as a whole rather than compiling the different aspects of a good shooter experience into something that would be fun and fitting for Mass Effect.

Whatever process BioWare went through in designing ME2, I'm confident that is was far more well thought out than any post in this thread.

Modifié par Inverness Moon, 15 mars 2010 - 08:12 .

[DarknessBear]

I noticed that there was a huge problem with Mass Effect 2, when my GF enjoyed the second one much more than I did. And she rarely plays games (and sucks at them).



They say they "listened" to the fans of ME1 for ME2. But they did not. They designed ME2 for my Girlfriend not for me...

[RighteousRage]

Inverness Moon wrote...

RighteousRage wrote...

I think the funniest part about all these design slides is that they apparently went through a complex process to produce shooter gameplay that's essentially Gears of War but with fewer features, as if they needed to test this thoroughly to find out if it could possibly work or something. If there's no need to reinvent the wheel, why did they do it?

Coincidence. They where making something to fit the design idea they had in mind for ME2. That it came out like GoW (something I have never played) is likely a coincidence. You seem to imply that they should have just directly copied what another game did as a whole rather than compiling the different aspects of a good shooter experience into something that would be fun and fitting for Mass Effect.

Whatever process BioWare went through in designing ME2, I'm confident that is was far more well thought out than any post in this thread.

No it's not a coincidence haha, the presentation even says that they looked at successful shooters (hence the reinventing the wheel remark), yet for some reason they laboriously went through the process of testing this only for it to come out less refined than Gears of War (which I have played, by the way). Basically it's like looking a wheel, saying "that's what we want" and then using focus groups to see if circular objects roll.

[Tasker]

For me, it's almost as if they chaneled all their effort into making a poor mans copy of the Gears of War system, that they totally forgot they were making an RPG.

But as i've already stated before, I have nothing against Bioware trying to make a pure FPS or TPS game, in fact I actually enjoy playing those games sometimes.

No, my problem lies in that they chose to "experiment" on the direct follow on sequel to an already existing multi million selling game, that had it's lore, asthetics and gameplay already established and which had had it's flaws already discussed and debated to death untill an accepted list of perfectly reasonable improvements had been compiled.

[CaptainZaysh]

Hey Christina,



Your team did a really great job. ME1 was my favourite game until ME2. Thanks so much.

[CatatonicMan]

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.

Umm...

Yeah, sorry. I don't think either of us is understanding the other. I'm just going to leave it there.

[Xpheyel]

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.

To be honest I agree with you. If progression and customization are the goals instead of just checking the RPG boxes, I'd prefer to see a more elaborate upgrade system instead of turning junk items into millions of unused credits and hunting through crates or worse, vendors with dialog trees ([View Standard Items]) for armor.

Modifié par Xpheyel, 15 mars 2010 - 11:51 .

[TurbanSoviet]

i like the new combat system but allow us to have more ammo/heat sinks what ever you want to call them



and let me use the smg as a soldier just let me switch out a weapon for it i.e. pistol for smg or AR for smg

[JKoopman]

I grow very tired of the "I'd rather have no inventory than the broken inventory of ME1" remarks. It seems like the supporters of the changes in ME2 approach it with the same "all or nothing" attitude to which BioWare approached ME2. Why does it have to be no inventory or a broken inventory? Why can't we have *gasp* an improved inventory? Why does everything always have to be black or white?

I don't think anyone here is advocating that a broken inventory or broken loot system or broken anything be implemented in ME2/ME3. What we scratch our heads about is why those "broken" features were simply stripped from the game rather than fixed as we all assumed they would be. After all, I'd rather have a working inventory than a broken inventory or no inventory at all.

It not like it's impossible to make an inventory or loot system that works while still being intuitive and easy to use. Other games have done it.

Inventory
Give us an option to sort by name/type/rank/etc, make identicle items stack and give us an "omni-gel all" button. This alone would have instantly solved almost every problem with item clutter in ME1.

Loot
Shrink the loot table from 10 ranks per item to 5 ranks or even 3 ranks, make the stat difference between ranks more pronounced to compensate and reduce the number of drops per encounter so you don't get overwhelmed by loot with every battle. Again, that alone would've instantly eliminated the complaints of "I hate having to omni-gel items for 10 minutes after each mission" that people constantly throw around.

Ammo (eg "A way to restrict and limit the over-use of singular weapon types")
Make ammo slowly regenerate just like health does now. The in-game explanation would be that the weapons still use thermal clips, but as the clips cool down over time they get re-added to the player's ammo pool. This would give players all the essence of an ammo and reloading mechanic and limit the over-use of one particular weapon without the "WTF why don't my weapons ever cool down!?" lore/physics-breaking idiocy and thermal clip scavenger hunts.

Wow, look at that. I just solved the 3 major problems with ME2 in about 10 minutes. Are they perfect? Probably not. But with focus groups and several months for testing they could be made to work, and it goes to show you that it doesn't have to be a case of "broken system or no system."

Modifié par JKoopman, 16 mars 2010 - 12:21 .

[Terror_K]

JKoopman wrote...

I grow very tired of the "I'd rather have no inventory than the broken inventory of ME1" remarks. It seems like the supporters of the changes in ME2 approach it with the same "all or nothing" attitude to which BioWare approached ME2. Why does it have to be no inventory or a broken inventory? Why can't we have *gasp* an improved inventory? Why does everything always have to be black or white?

I don't think anyone here is advocating that a broken inventory or broken loot system or broken anything be implemented in ME2/ME3. What we scratch our heads about is why those "broken" features were simply stripped from the game rather than fixed as we all assumed they would be. After all, I'd rather have a working inventory than a broken inventory or no inventory at all.

It not like it's impossible to make an inventory or loot system that works while still being intuitive and easy to use. Other games have done it.

Inventory
Give us an option to sort by name/type/rank/etc, make identicle items stack and give us an "omni-gel all" button. This alone would have instantly solved almost every problem with item clutter in ME1.

Loot
Shrink the loot table from 10 ranks per item to 5 ranks or even 3 ranks, make the stat difference between ranks more pronounced to compensate and reduce the number of drops per encounter so you don't get overwhelmed by loot with every battle. Again, that alone would've instantly eliminated the complaints of "I hate having to omni-gel items for 10 minutes after each mission" that people constantly throw around.

Ammo (eg "A way to restrict and limit the over-use of singular weapon types")
Make ammo slowly regenerate just like health does now. The in-game explanation would be that the weapons still use thermal clips, but as the clips cool down over time they get re-added to the player's ammo pool. This would give players all the essence of an ammo and reloading mechanic and limit the over-use of one particular weapon without the "WTF why don't my weapons ever cool down!?" lore/physics-breaking idiocy and thermal clip scavenger hunts.

Wow, look at that. I just solved the 3 major problems with ME2 in about 10 minutes. Are they perfect? Probably not. But with focus groups and several months for testing they could be made to work, and it goes to show you that it doesn't have to be a case of "broken system or no system."

^ This.

Though with regards to the Loot, I'd actually prefer it if there were no ranks per item but simply more manufacturers for each type of weapon... perhaps 5 or 6 of them, each one with its own particular strengths and weaknesses and own model to stop it being a case of ME1's "20 assault rifles that are all the same" issue people have. Then you simply use the current ME2 upgrade system in order to better your weapons (i.e. rank or level them up), and then bring back installable ME1 style mods to further customise them. Bingo: we have a far more in-depth weapons system that has the strengths of both and the weaknesses of neither.

Modifié par Terror_K, 16 mars 2010 - 12:44 .

[WillieStyle]

JKoopman,

This isn't a matter of us not understanding your position. I understand your position. I can also honestly say I hate every single one of your suggestions.

Omnigel all?! Why bother. The system in ME2 is much better.

Looting corpses for Elkos II assault rifles? No thanks. I like having a small number of weapons with real character. And there's no reason why a random blue suns merc should have better weapons than I do.

Regenerating Ammo?! It would make slow-firing weapons like the Widow massively overpowered. No thanks. The current ME2 system is just fine thanks.

[Chala]

wow I never thought that my thread could grow so much. Even Christina Norman replied here

[TJSolo]

WillieStyle wrote...

JKoopman,
This isn't a matter of us not understanding your position. I understand your position. I can also honestly say I hate every single one of your suggestions.
Omnigel all?! Why bother. The system in ME2 is much better.
Looting corpses for Elkos II assault rifles? No thanks. I like having a small number of weapons with real character. And there's no reason why a random blue suns merc should have better weapons than I do.
Regenerating Ammo?! It would make slow-firing weapons like the Widow massively overpowered. No thanks. The current ME2 system is just fine thanks.

Yet even with the limited weapon options in ME2. There are odd Blue Suns or whatever affiliation that do have better weapons then you.

Regenerating Ammo looks to be the direction ME2 was going with a combination of Thermal Clips and Cooling. Except the only system we have no is Thermal Clips.
The factor at which the ammo regenerated could make some weapons overpower IF ammo regenerated at a high rate.
The idea itself is very interesting and if the rate is balanced sounds more interesting then just plain ammo.

[CatatonicMan]

WillieStyle wrote...

JKoopman,
This isn't a matter of us not understanding your position. I understand your position. I can also honestly say I hate every single one of your suggestions.
Omnigel all?! Why bother. The system in ME2 is much better.
Looting corpses for Elkos II assault rifles? No thanks. I like having a small number of weapons with real character. And there's no reason why a random blue suns merc should have better weapons than I do.
Regenerating Ammo?! It would make slow-firing weapons like the Widow massively overpowered. No thanks. The current ME2 system is just fine thanks.

First off, one of the points of this thread is to discuss the inventory; claiming one is better than the other with no arguments isn't a good way of going about things.

Second, I'd like to point out that a substantial amount of weapons and weapon upgrades are found off essentially random things. I don't think it is unreasonable to find some interesting things in a random merc weapon.

Regenerating ammo would be fine if you implemented it sensibly (unlike the thermal clip system was). You simply assume that such an option is impossible, rather than considering how it might work.

[RuinFairlight]

While I do agree the inventory system was a mess in ME1 I would rather have one like it than the current one in place in ME2.  For many of RPG fans we are ravenous vampires always wanting more more more!   Maybe that why were are so hard to please.

I find this is departure from what hardcore fans expect of an rpg system, and seems to be happening all too frequently in the gaming industry nowadays. eg.. fewer skills, fewer attributes, fewer options.  Sometimes we see more quality this way but not always.

I really do not understand those that support the decision to simplify our gear in this manner, and frankly by supporting this IMO your helping to kill my favorite genre. 

Man I want options!  I want gloves, boots, chestpiece, pauldrons, gauntlets, robes, capes, hoods, helmets, heads bands, eyepatches and bandanas oh my!  Im not stopping there, I want to choice the color too, gives us the loot and let us decide what to with it!  RPGs need treasures, and Im not just talking coins and gems(I want those too!) 

Is setting up your party with either the best looking(personal taste) or the most effective combination of stuff really that cumbersome? Is it a console/casual user thing? 

If you strip your entire party of their gear and dont give them any replacements what kind of rpg gamer are you?  I mean seriously?

If thats too hard dont ever give Alistair(DAO) that nice warden commander armor and keep Starfang in the storage chest.  Predator H X for Ashley(ME1)? Nah fluffy pink phoenix is good enough, and so is the lancer I assault rifle.(Not that phoenix isnt cool.)

I wish we had some means to crack the .pcc files, because I want to put some more gear in my game.  Not replace but add. The DLCs are not pushing all the right buttons for me.

Dont get me wrong, I love ME2 and I think the entire team did an amazing job,  the entire game sort of feels like the last season of Angel(Weird comparison I know, I could explain...) but inventory is a little too clean cut for my tastes.  Looking over at the all the stuff at endgame, I felt there was some holes that needed to be filled, it started to feel like this was done on purpose to maximise DLC sales tbh. 

The combat IMO is sweet, harder modes in ME1 as anything but soldier had me feeling I was shooting foam bullets, which was frustrating to say the least.

I ambition to be a designer of sorts myself, mainly as a hobby so I may never get there, but I do enjoy writing up game concepts I would love to try, and things I would like to change or add
to in rpg titles I own.  Maybe this is why I think like this, and maybe its with a little bit of hope that when rpg gaming becomes stale and linear, it is people like me that will get into the industry with fresh new old ideas and bring back the old games.

What worries me is the line of thinking some designers seem to be displaying these days, and Christina's presentation prooves it and its not just her, its industry wide sadly.  See the slide demonstrating ME1 Level up menu.  The comment is and I quote  "Even I don't know what all this stuff is".  Excuse me? 

Check it out it says :" Pistols, Shotguns, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Combat Armor, First Aid, Assault Training, Fitness, Soldier, Charm, Intimidate".   Now those are some serious skills for a Soldier to have.  My gripe however is not with that system, I justified it as Shepard has reached epic levels and his old skills are like reflex memory now, and must retrain his new form with new "advanced" skills.

[kregano]

RuinFairlight wrote...

While I do agree the inventory system was a mess in ME1 I would rather have one like it than the current one in place in ME2.  For many of RPG fans we are ravenous vampires always wanting more more more!   Maybe that why were are so hard to please.

I find this is departure from what hardcore fans expect of an rpg system, and seems to be happening all too frequently in the gaming industry nowadays. eg.. fewer skills, fewer attributes, fewer options.  Sometimes we see more quality this way but not always.

I really do not understand those that support the decision to simplify our gear in this manner, and frankly by supporting this IMO your helping to kill my favorite genre. 

Man I want options!  I want gloves, boots, chestpiece, pauldrons, gauntlets, robes, capes, hoods, helmets, heads bands, eyepatches and bandanas oh my!  Im not stopping there, I want to choice the color too, gives us the loot and let us decide what to with it!  RPGs need treasures, and Im not just talking coins and gems(I want those too!) 

Is setting up your party with either the best looking(personal taste) or the most effective combination of stuff really that cumbersome? Is it a console/casual user thing? 

If you strip your entire party of their gear and dont give them any replacements what kind of rpg gamer are you?  I mean seriously?

If thats too hard dont ever give Alistair(DAO) that nice warden commander armor and keep Starfang in the storage chest.  Predator H X for Ashley(ME1)? Nah fluffy pink phoenix is good enough, and so is the lancer I assault rifle.(Not that phoenix isnt cool.)

I wish we had some means to crack the .pcc files, because I want to put some more gear in my game.  Not replace but add. The DLCs are not pushing all the right buttons for me.

Dont get me wrong, I love ME2 and I think the entire team did an amazing job,  the entire game sort of feels like the last season of Angel(Weird comparison I know, I could explain...) but inventory is a little too clean cut for my tastes.  Looking over at the all the stuff at endgame, I felt there was some holes that needed to be filled, it started to feel like this was done on purpose to maximise DLC sales tbh. 

The combat IMO is sweet, harder modes in ME1 as anything but soldier had me feeling I was shooting foam bullets, which was frustrating to say the least.

I ambition to be a designer of sorts myself, mainly as a hobby so I may never get there, but I do enjoy writing up game concepts I would love to try, and things I would like to change or add
to in rpg titles I own.  Maybe this is why I think like this, and maybe its with a little bit of hope that when rpg gaming becomes stale and linear, it is people like me that will get into the industry with fresh new old ideas and bring back the old games.

What worries me is the line of thinking some designers seem to be displaying these days, and Christina's presentation prooves it and its not just her, its industry wide sadly.  See the slide demonstrating ME1 Level up menu.  The comment is and I quote  "Even I don't know what all this stuff is".  Excuse me? 

Check it out it says :" Pistols, Shotguns, Assault Rifles, Sniper Rifles, Combat Armor, First Aid, Assault Training, Fitness, Soldier, Charm, Intimidate".   Now those are some serious skills for a Soldier to have.  My gripe however is not with that system, I justified it as Shepard has reached epic levels and his old skills are like reflex memory now, and must retrain his new form with new "advanced" skills.

I agree that having more armor parts and casual outfits would be good, but there's a point where customization becomes micromanagement. Personally, I feel that getting too much stuff is just going to lead to me going for whatever has the best base stats and modding the hell out of it, instead of trying each weapon and getting a feel for them. Managing the weapons and armor for 12 squadmates- who are all supposed to be competent at making these decisions for themselves- is going to get tedious and probably would result in players selecting one set of squadmates to go with them throughout the entire game just so they wouldn't have to worry about making sure everybody has upgraded gear, since there might be only one or two missions that require the entire crew to fight.

As for the skills, the ME1 weapon skills were pretty redundant aside from increasing accuracy on low levels because the mods did pretty much the same thing. It caused a major cognitive dissonance as well- these are all things Shepard should be good at already, considering that Shepard has been in the military for over a decade and is among the elite soldiers of the Alliance. There's no way Shepard would've been selected as a Spectre candidate if he or she really sucked like you do at the beginning of ME1.

That said, I don't mind loot, it's just that it has to be done in a way that fits the lore. Scanning new guns so your team can get them later and picking them up for yourself or passing them to a squad member who can use them fits with the scifi setting of Mass Effect, but picking up mods and generic guns that suddenly materialize out of nowhere from corpses doesn't. I have no problems with ME1's weapon licenses becoming loot and unlocking guns, but the idea of Shepard somehow carting around hundreds of guns and parts is something I cannot abide.

[TMA LIVE]

CatatonicMan wrote...

WillieStyle wrote...

JKoopman,
This isn't a matter of us not understanding your position. I understand your position. I can also honestly say I hate every single one of your suggestions.
Omnigel all?! Why bother. The system in ME2 is much better.
Looting corpses for Elkos II assault rifles? No thanks. I like having a small number of weapons with real character. And there's no reason why a random blue suns merc should have better weapons than I do.
Regenerating Ammo?! It would make slow-firing weapons like the Widow massively overpowered. No thanks. The current ME2 system is just fine thanks.

First off, one of the points of this thread is to discuss the inventory; claiming one is better than the other with no arguments isn't a good way of going about things.

Second, I'd like to point out that a substantial amount of weapons and weapon upgrades are found off essentially random things. I don't think it is unreasonable to find some interesting things in a random merc weapon.

Regenerating ammo would be fine if you implemented it sensibly (unlike the thermal clip system was). You simply assume that such an option is impossible, rather than considering how it might work.

1) Unity is already a name that's been used in Mass Effect 1 as an ability to revive the dead. Why change it when it still does exactly that? You're saying that just because the ammo is called something different that they should change the name?

2) Ammo can be found off the dead in real life. Finding a gun that's different from yours from the battle field is also believable. But finding 15 different guns and 15 different armors then the one's you already found, off the same mercenary group? Expecially a mercenary group that should be using the same armor, and probably uses the same  4 weapons as there company standard? Bull###$. Besides, by having less guns, it makes each weapons more special. While in Mass Effect 1, you just picked the most powerfull out of 17 versions of version from I to X... exactly. Too many options.

3) By having ammo, it forces you to switch to a different weapon when you run out. Thus adds more depth then having infinite bullets, which allowed you to only swicth weapons "when you felt like it", or because you were bored of trying to snipe with a shotgun (though you kind of still could, because accuracy didn't matter as long as you pointed in the right direction. Sure the hit points were low, but I'm lazy).

My thoughts on the Power Point: I agree with them on focusing on Combat more then RPG. After all, the combat sucked in Mass Effect 1 (to the point that I found it dated, and almost unplayable). And I do understand why they took 3 months on just figuring that part out (after all, it's not like they could just ask EPIC to be nice, and give them all the coding, animation, accuracy data, camera placement, cover data, etc. they did for Gears of War. No, they have to build that s3%t themselves like everyone else.) and then add the RPG elements. And it's because of this, I'm still playing Mass Effect 2 and recommend it more then the first.

[CatatonicMan]

kregano wrote...

Managing the weapons and armor for 12 squadmates- who are all supposed to be competent at making these decisions for themselves-

I'd prefer to handle their armor for them, honestly. Too many of the ME2 gang can't even dress themselves properly.

[Schneidend]

CatatonicMan wrote...

I'd prefer to handle their armor for them, honestly. Too many of the ME2 gang can't even dress themselves properly.

I have to agree on this. I think the dev team underestimated the fans on this point. Part of the fun of party members is developing them to your specifications. Transforming Alistair into an immovable object in Dragon Age and tuning HK-47 into an overpowered murder machine in KotOR2 are some of my fondest memories from those games.

As for the presentation itself: awesome. Pretty much explains everything in a very concise and meaningful way. Also, Christina's use of "Those Minerals" was surprising and hilariously awesome. She must be fun to work with.

[kregano]

CatatonicMan wrote...

kregano wrote...

Managing the weapons and armor for 12 squadmates- who are all supposed to be competent at making these decisions for themselves-

I'd prefer to handle their armor for them, honestly. Too many of the ME2 gang can't even dress themselves properly.

You know what, I'd back that if Bioware set it up so that you picking their armor leads to dialogue between you and your team member. It'd be a lot more realistic than having them accept the changes like sheep.

[slyguy07]

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.

I agree with Terror K and people DO want loot. Vote on the inventory poll here: social.bioware.com/965313/polls/3066/

It's simple. Finding loot provides a player with a simple act of material progression as the game goes on. Furthermore the upgrades in ME1 added to the customization aspect and the N7 armor was what took the place of all that along with the lame research station in ME2.

Customization is one of the most important parts of an RPG. Some games allow more than others. I am of the opinion ME3 should have tons of it. ME2 had next to none and ME1 had a little. Weapons and armor should be customizable to make your Shepard your own.

[slyguy07]

TJSolo wrote...

WillieStyle wrote...

JKoopman,
This isn't a matter of us not understanding your position. I understand your position. I can also honestly say I hate every single one of your suggestions.
Omnigel all?! Why bother. The system in ME2 is much better.
Looting corpses for Elkos II assault rifles? No thanks. I like having a small number of weapons with real character. And there's no reason why a random blue suns merc should have better weapons than I do.
Regenerating Ammo?! It would make slow-firing weapons like the Widow massively overpowered. No thanks. The current ME2 system is just fine thanks.

Yet even with the limited weapon options in ME2. There are odd Blue Suns or whatever affiliation that do have better weapons then you.

Regenerating Ammo looks to be the direction ME2 was going with a combination of Thermal Clips and Cooling. Except the only system we have no is Thermal Clips.
The factor at which the ammo regenerated could make some weapons overpower IF ammo regenerated at a high rate.
The idea itself is very interesting and if the rate is balanced sounds more interesting then just plain ammo.

Yes this is what I have been saying all along....ammo is lame especially when it is not ammo. The hybrid system would be a welcome compromise to ME1 and ME2 fanboys on this issue. Neither wants to compromise. I for on think the overheat bar was poorly done in ME1 and had potential. However after reading threads on this I can only conclude that the hybrid system would be the best solution.

Aside from the stupid codex breaking excuse in ME2 and immersion breaker all in one (not to mention it never did anything to change the strategy much less make you ever change guns even on insanity for more than a minute) and the endless ammo of godliness in ME1 a balanced system would be a welcome change.

[CatatonicMan]

TMA LIVE wrote...

3) By having ammo, it forces you to switch to a different weapon when you run out. Thus adds more depth then having infinite bullets, which allowed you to only swicth weapons "when you felt like it", or because you were bored of trying to snipe with a shotgun (though you kind of still could, because accuracy didn't matter as long as you pointed in the right direction. Sure the hit points were low, but I'm lazy).

I personally don't like being shoehorned into using different weapons for the sake of ammo conservation. Weapon usage should be based on effectiveness and tactics, not arbitrary and nonsensical limitations. The fact that the primary reason to use multiple weapons boils down to ammo scarcity indicates that they did something wrong with the weapon system (heavy weapons not withstanding - they are a class of their own).

More than that, though, was the fact that the ammo system made no sense. With the universal heat clips, it shouldn't be possible to run out of ammo for one gun without depleting the others - but it is. On top of this, picking up thermal clips should fill your weapon of choice first, but instead the ammo is spread evenly out among all the weapons.

The fact is that the ME2 system is functionally equivalent to giving each weapon its own ammunition - basically like a thinly-disguised generic shooter, except with ammo drops containing a small amount of each ammo type.

Immersion breaking as it is, it should never have been implemented this way.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 16 mars 2010 - 03:06 .