874 réponses à ce sujet

[slyguy07]

CatatonicMan wrote...

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. 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.

Right on with what I have been saying. (See above. )

[kregano]

slyguy07 wrote...

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.

The Bioware devs tried a hybrid system and found it lacking, according to Christina Norman back on the old forums. The best way I've seen so far to deal with this conundrum is this proposal, but it still has some drawbacks.

[RuinFairlight]

kregano wrote...

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.

Picking only the best stuff is power playing, while there is nothing
wrong with being a munchkin in a singleplayer game or if you play Rifts.  The great part about it is choice.  I have a little something for
aesthetics,  sometimes I just like the way things look, and want my
party to look a certain way.

Sure party members have minds of
there own and can easily pick their own gear, hell I think I can design
something around that...hmmmm.

You do however still pick your
party's weapon loadout, you are the commander.  "Hey Garrus, I see you
favoring that old rifle, why dont give this one a try? Oh and cerberus
new budget has afforded us all new Skunkworks armors, I suggest you try
it, the shield output is 43% higher than your current modulator." "No
thanks, commander im in the middle of some calibrations."

Have
you never played D&D and given your friends something cool to use
that your were holding on to sell? Like  say to your dwarf pal "Hey
Redbeard, thy axe seems a bit rusty, why not use this enchanted one I
picked from the that ogre's backside. Now were off to slay the werewolf of goblin mountain!

Yea they can pick their own stuff,
but as a leader coming across new stuff, you might as well share.  If
they were real they would nick it before you do, and you'd have to fight
about it.  The power is in player's hands, and that is were it should
be.

Also if it isnt apparent I like micromanaging, which I dont think there anything wrong with that either. 

I even have a system I use for ME1 since after the 1st playthrough, I know exacly the weapons, armor, and mods I want to find in order of preference and asthetics, so I keep my eyes open for certains gears.  I call this system "Sell it all". Just wish I would'nt have to go down to the darn lockers everytime!

kregano wrote...
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.

I cant agree 100%, in my experience soldier Shepard was cakewalk everytime from beginning to end.
Engineer and Vanguard on the other hand.... Besides what would be the fun if Shepard came half pointed at the start. I wasnt complaining here though.

kregano wrote...
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.

I never said ME1 inventory was any good,  but atleast it was present.  I miss weight systems, but some people dont like those eithers...  RPG fans are fickle arent we.

Modifié par RuinFairlight, 16 mars 2010 - 03:20 .

[TMA LIVE]

slyguy07 wrote...

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.

Customization is still in the game, it's just not 50 or 100 different options. It's 10. It's simple. My Shaphard looks like what my Shepard's suit "should" be, and not "combat suit X that looks like #hit, but hey, it's got good armor stats." Would I like 5 more then just 10? Sure. Do I think the upgrade part could be improved, so I'm adding stuff to my guns as well as my suit, then yes, I agree it's something I want for MS3. But not the way it was in Mass Effect 1, because that was just terrible.

[slyguy07]

TMA LIVE wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

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.

Customization is still in the game, it's just not 50 or 100 different options. It's 10. It's simple. My Shaphard looks like what my Shepard's suit "should" be, and not "combat suit X that looks like #hit, but hey, it's got good armor stats." Would I like 5 more then just 10? Sure. Do I think the upgrade part could be improved, so I'm adding stuff to my guns as well as my suit, then yes, I agree it's something I want for MS3. But not the way it was in Mass Effect 1, because that was just terrible.

Yes!! Nobody wants that clunky mess that ME1 was. Notice my poll has the option for many items, 5-10 per weapon type, just a several and even to leave it like it was in ME2. Basically ME3's inventory does not need to be like ME1 or ME2.

[TMA LIVE]

CatatonicMan wrote...

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. 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.

Every shooter has you get ammo off "that one box that fell from the dead dude". Having you search for that "Green Thermal Rifle ammo" in a room full of "Purple Assault Rifle Ammo" would just plain suck.

As for being shoehorned, I'd rather play a game where running out of ammo allows me to think and uses my weapons correctly, and at the right time for the right reasons, then simply killing every enemy with a handgun because I felt like it.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 mars 2010 - 03:20 .

[mcsupersport]

Personally I want to see more armor pieces and weapons, but no pack mule inventory that I have to wade through. I also want to still be able to avoid a fight and not feel I am missing out on good materials/guns/armor. I like that ME2 doesn't reward you for killing, but for completing the mission. Keep the load out screen and armor screen from ME2, maybe add more pieces and allow some customization to squadies, maybe as side-missions or some such.



Biggest thing I would like for all armor and weapons are STATS!! I want to know rate of fire, dps, magazine size, and spare ammo amounts for all guns at load out!!!

[Dudeman315]

TMA LIVE wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

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.

Customization is still in the game, it's just not 50 or 100 different options. It's 10. It's simple. My Shaphard looks like what my Shepard's suit "should" be, and not "combat suit X that looks like #hit, but hey, it's got good armor stats." Would I like 5 more then just 10? Sure. Do I think the upgrade part could be improved, so I'm adding stuff to my guns as well as my suit, then yes, I agree it's something I want for MS3. But not the way it was in Mass Effect 1, because that was just terrible.

MW2 has 5 shotguns with like 5 customizations each Plus more categories of weapons. This game has less customization in equipment than a FPS.

Replace "combat suit X" with Collector armor (because of it's regen) and ME2 is exactly that.

[CatatonicMan]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Every shooter has you get ammo off "that one box that fell from the dead dude". Having you search for that "Green Thermal Rifle ammo" in a room full of "Purple Assault Rifle Ammo" would just plain suck.

As for being shoehorned, I'd rather play a game where running out of ammo allows me to think and uses my weapons correctly, and at the right time for the right reasons, then simply killing every enemy with a handgun because I felt like it.

I'm not suggesting that there actually be multiple ammo types; that would be terrible. Rather, I was pointing out that the ammo system they designed doesn't function like it logically should, breaking lore and immersion in the process.

For gameplay purposes, I suppose it works well enough. But I still think that weapon choice should be, well, a choice. If you want to pistol your way through the game, you should be able to do so. That, however, doesn't imply that using the pistol for the entire game would be a smart or effective choice; that's where the tactics come in.

My main idea is that the game should allow the option of playing tactically, rather than simply clamping down the ability to do otherwise. The tactical option should provide enough incentive on its own without the need for obvious, immersion-breaking balance factors.

The gameplay portion is my opinion, of course, but the other remains perfectly true.

[TMA LIVE]

Dudeman315 wrote...

MW2 has 5 shotguns with like 5 customizations each Plus more categories of weapons. This game has less customization in equipment than a FPS.

Replace "combat suit X" with Collector armor (because of it's regen) and ME2 is exactly that.

I agree that when it comes to weapons, there isn't really any customization at all to them. Thus, I agree that I want that to be improved.

As for Collactor Armor, I didn't get the Collactor's Edition, thus I don't have that. But anyways, that's more of a issue with the "all in one" suits, not with making a N7 suit "your" N7 suit, with type of headgear you want, etc.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 16 mars 2010 - 03:37 .

[Dudeman315]

I'll agree the all in one suits should have been pieces for the N7. And I'd support an N7 system for the weapons as well, better mass accelerator speeds up fire rate, better coolant systems for more ammo, etc. Make them one use or weapon specific items, give each weapon an exclusive kinda like RE4/5 except the exclusive(have all other up grades)and the other upgrades are find/buy. Also move ammo types to items not powers maybe weapon upgrades even exclusives which would encourage tactical thought. Do I take my 50 dam rifle or my 40 + 25 against synthetics and shields.
Numbers were just thrown out as examples.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 16 mars 2010 - 04:00 .

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

RuinFairlight wrote...
I never said ME1 inventory was any good,  but atleast it was present.

Yeah but that's the problem. Developers don't like redundancy. You'll never see a dev  who likes a bad feature simply because it's there. When it comes between having a lousy implementation of something versus not having it at all, people would logically choose the latter. The more flaws you have in the end product, the more it's going to pull down the game. The fans wouldn't praise it for being there, they'd HATE it for still being bad.

Modifié par Fluffeh Kitteh, 16 mars 2010 - 05:05 .

[TJSolo]

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

RuinFairlight wrote...
I never said ME1 inventory was any good,  but atleast it was present.

Yeah but that's the problem. Developers don't like redundancy. You'll never see a dev  who likes a bad feature simply because it's there. When it comes between having a lousy implementation of something versus not having it at all, people would logically choose the latter. The more flaws you have in the end product, the more it's going to pull down the game. The fans wouldn't praise it for being there, they'd HATE it for still being bad.

You're really over using the word hate in regards to feelings on ME1 and 2.
The option isn't between massive inventory vs no inventory.
ME1s inventory could have been improved by lessening all the items you got and making it easier to sort through.
ME2s inventory if you can call it that still needs improvement in that it is generally too scarce on items.
Both systems were not implemented that well and still have detractors. Just because you are not a ME2 inventory detractor does not make ME2s inventory good.

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

It was intended to work that way. That's precisely why there's no inventory to begin with, because it wasn't necessary given the style in ME2. You have to bear in mind that ME2 isn't a tweaked ME1. It stands very much as its own game with its own mechanics with a hint of resemblance to Me1 mechanics; the item scarcity is not a downside unless you judge ME2 on a rigid checklist of ME1 elements.

If you wanna start talking about ME2 getting more items so that it would warrant the necessity of there being an inventory to manage said items, it would be an issue of icing on the cake, like adding another gun, or another squadmate, etc. Unless of course the pool of items is somehow structured in a manner such that they constitute crucial gameplay elements, etc and at that level it's already bordering on fundamental core changes.

It may be easy from the fan's standpoint to be quick to cry foul at cutting out stuff rather than trying to make it better, but again it's ultimately the dev's call, for better or for worse. The whole inventory idea for ME2 is more of a "could be good if done well" issue rather than "the game feels lacking without it" unless you're an RPG player who has high expectations for player inventory in the games you play.

Modifié par Fluffeh Kitteh, 16 mars 2010 - 05:29 .

[flem1]

Bio isn't going to bring back the stupid loot management minigame that's weighed down every previous RPG for ME3, are they?



ME2 was wonderful in its purity. Just need more appearance options.

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

The thing is, there's always a gray area that is the source of controversy. We'd never ever be able to build consensus on whether or not the inventory is good or bad purely because we're all individuals who have differing opinions... opinions which can't all get along because there's only one ME2 and so many opinions floating around.

[TornadoADV]

flem1 wrote...

Bio isn't going to bring back the stupid loot management minigame that's weighed down every previous RPG for ME3, are they?

ME2 was wonderful in its purity. Just need more appearance options.

Because I love armor having such weak stats that it makes no difference on anything higher then Veteran. I have to think less.

[Massadonious1]

Yes, I'm sure finding out wether you wanted 2 extra points of protection per new piece of armor you got must of taxed your brain cells to it's extreme.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 16 mars 2010 - 06:03 .

[jgordon11]

TornadoADV wrote...

flem1 wrote...

Bio isn't going to bring back the stupid loot management minigame that's weighed down every previous RPG for ME3, are they?

ME2 was wonderful in its purity. Just need more appearance options.

Because I love armor having such weak stats that it makes no difference on anything higher then Veteran. I have to think less.

So you're mad that the higher difficulties make your armor less effective, thus making the gameplay more difficult?

[TJSolo]

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

It was intended to work that way. That's precisely why there's no inventory to begin with, because it wasn't necessary given the style in ME2. You have to bear in mind that ME2 isn't a tweaked ME1. It stands very much as its own game with its own mechanics with a hint of resemblance to Me1 mechanics; the item scarcity is not a downside unless you judge ME2 on a rigid checklist of ME1 elements.

If you wanna start talking about ME2 getting more items so that it would warrant the necessity of there being an inventory to manage said items, it would be an issue of icing on the cake, like adding another gun, or another squadmate, etc. Unless of course the pool of items is somehow structured in a manner such that they constitute crucial gameplay elements, etc and at that level it's already bordering on fundamental core changes.

It may be easy from the fan's standpoint to be quick to cry foul at cutting out stuff rather than trying to make it better, but again it's ultimately the dev's call, for better or for worse. The whole inventory idea for ME2 is more of a "could be good if done well" issue rather than "the game feels lacking without it" unless you're an RPG player who has high expectations for player inventory in the games you play.

I understand ME2 is more of a stand alone game and the sequel title is for name and story not all mechanics.
The issue is you're making a point that ME1s inventory has issues.
My point is ME2s system has issues just on the opposite spectrum.

My view of ME2 does not just come from ME1 but from other BW games I have played. Kotor, ME1, and DAO.(not a veteran I know)
I see the refinement in ME2 but at the same time the scarcity.
You aren't making any points for or against ME2. Just statements that means it is what it is.
I can see what it is and at the same time I can say it is not enough selection for me.
I can function and excel within the confines of a working as intended system. That doesn't mean the system even if working as intended can do without improval.

Never have I stated that any idea I or another person has would be easy for BW to implement.
Given the confines of how the inventory is design I think it would be hard to create extra guns that would fit into the confines and useful but not over/underpowered.

I can read the prezi and all the other dev interviews. It is clear the intended direction for ME2 is simple.
It is my contention that the intended direction is boring and complexity should be added back in.
Reading the last slide in Ms.Normans prezi leads me to hope ME3 will be an improved version taking from ME1 and 2.

[Slygar]

All I want to know is, is Christina married? If not, um, how bout dinner?

[StowyMcStowstow]

It seems like they tried not to take risks with their project. A lot of the design changes I feel lessened the game experience it seems like were cut out quite early in the design process. They wanted upgradeable weapons. Ok, where are they? I think they mean the general upgrades, but those don't count because they don't make the weapons themselves upgradeable. sure there's separate ones for ARs, SMGs, and Shotguns, but upgrading them is about as satisfying as buying a mediocre knife and them over time buying new parts that each cost slightly more and are only slightly better quality than the last.
And wtf? I just saw the slide saying that defensive powers ruin intensity. Whoever thought that should be punched. It you're using defensive powers, it because you're trying to not die, which is usually intense.
Easy to use-not "dumbed down"- no, actually it was dumbed down, which made it easier to use. EVERY part of the game, except mining, was made easier, and far more simple. I get the whole "focus on shooter because thats what BW sucks at" thing, but BW needs to realize that sometimes, complex customization is good, and some people like it. Like me.
Bioware DOES need to improve their RPG elements. Make upgrades actually feel rewarding. I'm pretty sure not too many people were like "sweet, got another +10% damage for my Assault Rifle!" It's just something that's there simply for us to use our minerals on.

[Terror_K]

Here's a mock-up I made of the basic thing I would have liked to have seen for ME2 and would like to see for ME3:-

Modifié par Terror_K, 16 mars 2010 - 08:58 .

[TornadoADV]

jgordon11 wrote...

TornadoADV wrote...

flem1 wrote...

Bio isn't going to bring back the stupid loot management minigame that's weighed down every previous RPG for ME3, are they?

ME2 was wonderful in its purity. Just need more appearance options.

Because I love armor having such weak stats that it makes no difference on anything higher then Veteran. I have to think less.

So you're mad that the higher difficulties make your armor less effective, thus making the gameplay more difficult?

Only had to wait 1 post before some shmuck inferred "L2P". classic ME2 Fanboy. *claps*

For your information, armor is pointless in ME2. The only thing worth a damn is the Blood Dragon Armor for it's +15% Power Damage. On Insanity, your research into Medicial VI and Redundant Generator are more important then any meager bonus that your armor can muster in increased shields/health (Both of which vanish under so much as a sneeze in your general direction.)

[Dethateer]

Err, yeah, armor's kind of useless on higher difficulty levels. You'll get shredded so fast if you don't stay in cover that you won't even notice the shield going down.