874 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

Orkboy wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

thompsonaf wrote...

QFT

I'd like to be able to change armor/gear/mod loadouts on all my squadmates (even if there's 20 of them!). It really adds a lot to the experience, at least for me.

case in point: how exactly does that add to the experience at all, other than being a pointless time-sink and annoyance everytime you find a new weapon/upgrade?

How about The Sims  series?

As they are nothing but pointless time-sinks how come all 3 of the series have sold in their millions and all have had bucket loads of expansion packs?

If people didn't like pointless time-sinks then do you real think The Sims 1 would have made it past the first base game?

For a lot of people, the micromanagement aspect of RPGs is a huge contributor to why they play them in the first place.

the sims is not a 3rd person action-shooter-rpg with a race-against-time apocalyptic story; what exactly was your point?

[Embrosil]

Jebel Krong wrote...

thompsonaf wrote...

QFT

I'd like to be able to change armor/gear/mod loadouts on all my squadmates (even if there's 20 of them!). It really adds a lot to the experience, at least for me.

case in point: how exactly does that add to the experience at all, other than being a pointless time-sink and annoyance everytime you find a new weapon/upgrade?

Yes, and why the hell even waste time with different weapons? Next time we can get only one weapon and one armor without possibility to modify so we can spend all the time doing kadabooms and killing everything that moves.
I still do not get it, why people, who can choose from thousand shooter games want to make other games shooters. ME1 is an action RPG and ME2 should be too. If you want a shooter, go play GoW, Halo or any other.

[Doright36]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

thompsonaf wrote...

QFT

I'd like to be able to change armor/gear/mod loadouts on all my squadmates (even if there's 20 of them!). It really adds a lot to the experience, at least for me.

case in point: how exactly does that add to the experience at all, other than being a pointless time-sink and annoyance everytime you find a new weapon/upgrade?

How about The Sims  series?

As they are nothing but pointless time-sinks how come all 3 of the series have sold in their millions and all have had bucket loads of expansion packs?

If people didn't like pointless time-sinks then do you real think The Sims 1 would have made it past the first base game?

For a lot of people, the micromanagement aspect of RPGs is a huge contributor to why they play them in the first place.

the sims is not a 3rd person action-shooter-rpg with a race-against-time apocalyptic story; what exactly was your point?

Does anyone but me think that an RPG game with sim like character development and life building aspects included would be HUGE! 

Instead of your sim going off to "work" you head out.... save the world... then come home and continue your in universe Sim life...

It'd be Epic.

and why does Sim's have to be set in the real world. You think Sim's would clean up if they made a game set in a Mideival period or outter space. It'd be pretty cool. Spending your evenings trying to get your sim to whoohoo with every alien babe you can find.  

[slyguy07]

MarloMarlo wrote...

slyguy07 wrote...

Yeah I will back up Terror K on this...I don't have to patience to actually be serious and put up with the know-it-alls and people who demand we play by philosophy 101 rules even when factual evidence is presented, but it sure was fun poking someone on here for a few times. Oh me lol I just crack up thinking about it. Anyhow Pocket you did a good job of debating while I was doing that and you was being serious. I applaud your patience, but I'm sure you noticed it wasn't you I was poking.

You think basic argumentation, like backing up what you say, is intro university stuff? Sucks to be you. You know, this isn't a difficult topic. We both have access to the same material. I'm not expecting anything from you or anyone else that takes more than the basic understanding that merely stating something doesn't automatically make it worth sharing. It's not elitist to provide factual evidence before saying it has been provided, or to breathe through your nose.

Marlo! I thought you had run away. Basic argumentation you say is university stuff? Nope I just think it's funny how you float with a "aura of superiority" and turn everything into a semi-intellectual wall of crap. It's been great fun though. I'm glad you think breathing isn't elitist because then everyone would be.  That would be scarey. I just remind you that the factual evidence is there. So many like you are keen on ignoring it, but I digress as I must be going.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

taking your latter point, i prefer say, miranda's outfit, to some big bulky unfeminine armour a la ashley. admittedly it's a petty preference thing, but notions of "unrealistic" are moot in a science-fiction game of this nature (the sudden switch to thermal clips for every weapon being a far bigger issue for me).

No offense, but you're the one who brought up realism and things being ridiculous with the idea of equipping your squad in the first place, so if you're going to dismiss realism then please at least remain consistent. Let's not forget things are no different when changing their outfits which ME2 lets you do anyway. In fact, it makes less sense since it really is purely a cosmetic thing and provides to additional bonus at all, while armour equipping would at least provide protection. ME1 may have been a sci-fi game, but aside from biotics and eezo it was at least somewhat down to earth and I believe ME2 should remain that way and not end up going all modern Hollywood BS on us. Not that they have, but realistically running around in mere clothing in battle is more than a bit silly... particularly in high heels.

If one wants to gawp at Miranda purely as a preference thing, then let's keep in mind that during most battle situations you're focusing more on the enemy than looking at your squad anyway, and that about 80% of your conversations with them will likely take place on The Normandy, where you can simply have them in their civvies ala Shepard anyway.

Agree with the thermal clip issues though. Huge fubar.

as for your first point: no i'm not so ADD-addled that i can't do it, but i did find that i spent so much time in menus changing armour/mods in mass effect 1 that it kind of ruined the flow of the game at times - mass effect 2 maintained that aspect much better the way it handled upgrades. the me2 armour system, as i said already, was flexible enough - dlc one-pieces or customisable N7 to sate most desires, but limiting you to doing it in-between missions on ship meant that you did it in your own time, not during missions etc. you can put as much time in as you like, but are not forced to all the time, either.

You're not really forced to do anything in ME1, since it's purely up to you when you want to check out the new items on offer. Admittedly the system was rather clumsy, and I'll be the first to admit it, but like has been said many times before this isn't a black and white deal here: it's not like it's "if you want inventory it must be like ME1's was exactly or not at all!" or anything. That's why many of us are annoyed that things were binned and not fixed.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind it if the system itself remained mostly as it is in ME2 (i.e. you only alter things on The Normandy or at certain points like weapon loadout lockers) as long as there was more depth to the armour and weapons, more visual stats that link the commonly rather than silly little blurbs and simply more items overall to get. As somebody said in this thread earlier, it's not so much that the inventory was removed as it is the fact that what it was replaced with was so shallow and unsubstantial, particularly given this is supposed to be an RPG. Almost everything taken out was simply filled in with either nothing or a more shooter-oriented system (ala, weapons) and then BioWare sprinkled us with a little customisation that's nice but basically fluff (armour and Normandy customisation stuff) lacking in any true depth.

[Kaylord]

Back to the topic: You know, Deus Ex: Invisible War got criticized a lot because of exaxtly those features which ME2 now introduced. Unified ammo and mission-arenas.



I personally blame the console port for most of the bad changes. Everything else is just excuses for ignoring the more sophisticated input and inventory possibilities a PC does have.



But we should discern two different changes: One is to get rid of the ME1 excel sheet named inventory. One is to have a fun way of interacting with / finding of nice stuff.



I am not content with having a limited ammo-and-armor-inventory on the one hand, but not being able to choose outfits properly. No helmet flaw. No armor for squadmates. No two assault rifles instead of two different weapons. Ugh.

[Tasker]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

thompsonaf wrote...

QFT

I'd like to be able to change armor/gear/mod loadouts on all my squadmates (even if there's 20 of them!). It really adds a lot to the experience, at least for me.

case in point: how exactly does that add to the experience at all, other than being a pointless time-sink and annoyance everytime you find a new weapon/upgrade?

How about The Sims  series?

As they are nothing but pointless time-sinks how come all 3 of the series have sold in their millions and all have had bucket loads of expansion packs?

If people didn't like pointless time-sinks then do you real think The Sims 1 would have made it past the first base game?

For a lot of people, the micromanagement aspect of RPGs is a huge contributor to why they play them in the first place.

the sims is not a 3rd person action-shooter-rpg with a race-against-time apocalyptic story; what exactly was your point?

My point was made in my last sentence, so what exactly was your point?

My point was that micromanagement and "pointless time-sinks" are more popular than a lot of people seem to think.

If they weren't then all of Biowares previous games and games like the Sims would not sell in the quantities that they do.

ME as a series was originally envisioned with these standard RPG elements and ME1 sold in the millions. So why did they feel the need to butcher it to produce ME2?

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

taking your latter point, i prefer say, miranda's outfit, to some big bulky unfeminine armour a la ashley. admittedly it's a petty preference thing, but notions of "unrealistic" are moot in a science-fiction game of this nature (the sudden switch to thermal clips for every weapon being a far bigger issue for me).

No offense, but you're the one who brought up realism and things being ridiculous with the idea of equipping your squad in the first place, so if you're going to dismiss realism then please at least remain consistent. Let's not forget things are no different when changing their outfits which ME2 lets you do anyway. In fact, it makes less sense since it really is purely a cosmetic thing and provides to additional bonus at all, while armour equipping would at least provide protection. ME1 may have been a sci-fi game, but aside from biotics and eezo it was at least somewhat down to earth and I believe ME2 should remain that way and not end up going all modern Hollywood BS on us. Not that they have, but realistically running around in mere clothing in battle is more than a bit silly... particularly in high heels.

If one wants to gawp at Miranda purely as a preference thing, then let's keep in mind that during most battle situations you're focusing more on the enemy than looking at your squad anyway, and that about 80% of your conversations with them will likely take place on The Normandy, where you can simply have them in their civvies ala Shepard anyway.

Agree with the thermal clip issues though. Huge fubar.

as for your first point: no i'm not so ADD-addled that i can't do it, but i did find that i spent so much time in menus changing armour/mods in mass effect 1 that it kind of ruined the flow of the game at times - mass effect 2 maintained that aspect much better the way it handled upgrades. the me2 armour system, as i said already, was flexible enough - dlc one-pieces or customisable N7 to sate most desires, but limiting you to doing it in-between missions on ship meant that you did it in your own time, not during missions etc. you can put as much time in as you like, but are not forced to all the time, either.

You're not really forced to do anything in ME1, since it's purely up to you when you want to check out the new items on offer. Admittedly the system was rather clumsy, and I'll be the first to admit it, but like has been said many times before this isn't a black and white deal here: it's not like it's "if you want inventory it must be like ME1's was exactly or not at all!" or anything. That's why many of us are annoyed that things were binned and not fixed.

To be honest, I wouldn't mind it if the system itself remained mostly as it is in ME2 (i.e. you only alter things on The Normandy or at certain points like weapon loadout lockers) as long as there was more depth to the armour and weapons, more visual stats that link the commonly rather than silly little blurbs and simply more items overall to get. As somebody said in this thread earlier, it's not so much that the inventory was removed as it is the fact that what it was replaced with was so shallow and unsubstantial, particularly given this is supposed to be an RPG. Almost everything taken out was simply filled in with either nothing or a more shooter-oriented system (ala, weapons) and then BioWare sprinkled us with a little customisation that's nice but basically fluff (armour and Normandy customisation stuff) lacking in any true depth.

none taken. there's a difference between running around in a slightly unrealistic outfit and being able to carry an army's worth of different weapons/ammo/mods/armour etc. though. i don't see me2 as any different from me1 in terms of most of the overarching concepts - the universe is pretty well-though through (other than arbitrary changes made for "gameplay" - ammo clips being our best example).

i'd like more weapons/outfits - without being nickel-and-dimed though. i'm sure there will be, too - unfortunately it's a failry obvious area to exploit. as long as they're sufficiently differentiated i can take or leave any arbitrary stats though (enemies auto-level so specific weapon damage won't be that helpful throughout the game). i thought the normandy upgrades idea was pretty good, actually, other than starting with low fuel capacity/slow scanning ability which made the whole planet-scanning even more tedious.

nobody minds more depth, it's arbitrary/traditional backwards-step rpg mechanics for the sake of it that some people do mind (i'd hate to see any kind of point-based aiming again in a game that is at least part straight shooter, for example).

[UltimateRC]

thompsonaf wrote...

UltimateRC wrote...
[...] it was that you LOST functionality
and customisation in the change over. Particularly pointing to the
ability to upgrade/style/choose our squad mates' gear, and the ability
to customise weapons.
[...]

QFT

I'd
like to be able to change armor/gear/mod loadouts on all my squadmates
(even if there's 20 of them!). It really adds a lot to the experience,
at least for me.

Revan312 wrote...

UltimateRC wrote...
*snip*

I
couldn't agree more, the upgrade system is just dumb imo.  What's the
point when there is no choice and your just gonna get them all anyway...

Nice to know that some people agree with me

Jebel Krong wrote...

thompsonaf wrote...
I'd like to be able to change armor/gear/mod loadouts on all my squadmates (even if there's 20 of them!). It really adds a lot to the experience, at least for me.

case in point: how exactly does that add to the experience at all, other than being a pointless time-sink and annoyance everytime you find a new weapon/upgrade?

Same way it adds to the experience of customising your own armour. And pointless time sink? I'd rather be there deciding how to load out my allies than scanning for more damn minerals.... Besides, just like the weapons, just like leveling up, there could be an auto-"choose whatever its probably best" option for those who don't care.

Pocketgb wrote...

UltimateRC wrote...

Simply
put, it was that you LOST functionality and customisation in the change
over. Particularly pointing to the ability to upgrade/style/choose our
squad mates' gear, and the ability to customise weapons .

Only with weapon mods, but at least we get to choose different weapon loadouts. N7 armor is highly customizable.

For your own character. You're forgetting that half your squad runs around in leotards (or less). The upgrades everywhere else aren't even either/or. They're presented so slowly, and you're given so many resources that, like I said, its just a case of 'oh, I have something I can upgrade, I will.' Theres no meaningful choice.

[Dudeman315]

Jebel Krong wrote...

none taken. there's a difference between running around in a slightly unrealistic outfit and being able to carry an army's worth of different weapons/ammo/mods/armour etc. though. i don't see me2 as any different from me1 in terms of most of the overarching concepts - the universe is pretty well-though through (other than arbitrary changes made for "gameplay" - ammo clips being our best example).

i'd like more weapons/outfits - without being nickel-and-dimed though. i'm sure there will be, too - unfortunately it's a failry obvious area to exploit. as long as they're sufficiently differentiated i can take or leave any arbitrary stats though (enemies auto-level so specific weapon damage won't be that helpful throughout the game). i thought the normandy upgrades idea was pretty good, actually, other than starting with low fuel capacity/slow scanning ability which made the whole planet-scanning even more tedious.

nobody minds more depth, it's arbitrary/traditional backwards-step rpg mechanics for the sake of it that some people do mind (i'd hate to see any kind of point-based aiming again in a game that is at least part straight shooter, for example).

A)a wormhole linking to your inventory in a game that revoles around wormholes.
B)skin exposure to space(Jack) and being fine. 

A is more believable to me. Granted wasn't explained in game but I just assumed this is how it worked when I played it.  They should have given Jack a biotic field or something.

[Mightyg]

"More complex enemies"



Always a plus, happy to hear that.

[Darth Drago]

Like I mentioned it someplace before…

If the BioWare developers are indeed going to focus on the RPG elements for Mass Effect 3 does that mean ME3 will be the game ME1 should have been in the first place? Or will they just do another butchering and try to reboot the franchise like they did with ME2 with a crap load of new changes?

I don’t know how it is on the PC but on the X-Box 360 when your Mission Computer (the pause menu with all the option like Journal, Save and Load on it) has only one change in the 8 selections between both games. Yet only one of them is in the same spot between both games? Great game designing!

I do almost expect ME3 to evolve into a first person shooter with player vs. player maps as downloads. Probably with as much of a deep story that Halo 3: ODST had.

[baller7345]

Jebel Krong wrote...
A)a wormhole linking to your inventory in a game that revoles around wormholes.
B)skin exposure to space(Jack) and being fine. 

A is more believable to me. Granted wasn't explained in game but I just assumed this is how it worked when I played it.  They should have given Jack a biotic field or something.

Wait, you find Shepard walkikng around with a mini wormhole as a believable concept?  The physics for that to work are simply insane and it would never be a practical method of holding anything.  The game doesn't revolve around worm holes it revolves around mass effect fields and its story.  The mass effect fields are able to create barriers that may be able to shield the body from the vaccuum of space.  Both of these are extremely unlikely but the wormhole is bordering on not possible more than not wearing a proper space suit even if the suit is an extremely annoying part of the game.  

[yoda23]

MarloMarlo wrote...

yoda23 wrote...
I have struggled a bit to identify why I may have been more interested by ME1 as opposed to ME2.  I think it does have something to do with the lack of inventory and customization that is available. What I referring to is immersion.

Really? Carrying 150 guns and full sets or armor at once and being able to switch between them in the middle of combat in ME1 is why you're referring to immersion?

Obviously you are not quite the reader MarloMarlo. (2 first names, Really?)

This was the actual quote...

yoda23 wrote...

On the downside, ME2's narrative has
I think suffered a bit due to the lack of complexity in the game. I have
struggled a bit to identify why I may have been more interested by ME1
as opposed to ME2.  I think it does have something to do with the lack
of inventory and customization that is available. What I referring to is
immersion. The old inventory of ME1 was more than just loot to the
Reader. Now I know there are those out there who will say, "this is a
game, I didn't come here to read". Well that really is a shame because
now all the so-called Nerdy elements have been relegated to the planet
scanning thing which currently seems pointless. (By the way, the News
Kiosks seem pointless also) What I mean is I have absolutely no
motivation to read about a planet, scan it, and then simply (ugh!) fly
away. The new game has given me very little reason to be interested in
the planets I am spending so much time "exploring". Compared to the old,
supposedly bad, inventory where the narrative behind some of the
weapons/items led me to believe there was going to be more to the story
of the various corporate factions, not substantially less, in the next
chapter. Ultimately it was the variety of the items in the game that led
to a richer and more immersive experience. Ergo, I had a reason to care
who the Elkos Combine was because I was using their crap. Get it?

Sorry if that was too much for you to read...

[yoda23]

Dudeman315 wrote...

So how's that philosophy degree coming mariomario?

+1

[Blk_Mage_Ctype]

It went straight into the garbage where it belongs.

[yoda23]

Terror_K wrote...

Too many seemed to be concerned with what defines an RPG and not enough of what gives an RPG depth and substance. Just because Mass Effect 2 fits the basic definition of an RPG, doesn't mean its a deep one with enough RPG meat and bones to satisfy the hungry RPG fan. Things aren't so black and white as to mean that if a game succeeds in being defined as an RPG that it succeeds at being an RPG.

+1

[Terror_K]

[quote]Jebel Krong wrote...

there's a difference between running around in a slightly unrealistic outfit and being able to carry an army's worth of different weapons/ammo/mods/armour etc. though.[/quote]

That's not what I (or the others) were having an issue with. We just wanted to be able to customise and put armour on our squaddies; we never said anything about needing to do it mid-battle and having to carry around a bunch of armours and weapons with us all the time. I'm sure a lot of people would have been happy if you could only do it on The Normandy like with Shepard.

[quote]
as long as they're sufficiently differentiated i can take or leave any arbitrary stats though (enemies auto-level so specific weapon damage won't be that helpful throughout the game).[/quote]

A lot of RPG's have enemies auto-level along with you. ME1 did too. As did KotoR, and Dragon Age Origins. Yet these games had stats too. I believe the best way to do this is for you to level-up your guns attributes via research upgrading, as well as providing more higher level weapons, but not as different levels of existing weapons. For example, ME2 could have easily employed a system where you had a bunch of weapons you found before Horizon, and then some higher level ones after it.

[/quote]
i thought the normandy upgrades idea was pretty good, actually, other than starting with low fuel capacity/slow scanning ability which made the whole planet-scanning even more tedious.[/quote]

The Normandy upgrades idea is good, but it's too linear and not enough by itself. Weapon modding and/or other forms of weapon customisation need to return, since there is no weapon customisation, only linear upgrades (which aren't helped by the fact that all weapons and upgrades are always in the same places in every game you play, meaning there's no surprise or randomness to anything).

[quote]
nobody minds more depth, it's arbitrary/traditional backwards-step rpg mechanics for the sake of it that some people do mind (i'd hate to see any kind of point-based aiming again in a game that is at least part straight shooter, for example).[/quote]

To be fair, Mass Effect was originally not "part straight shooter" and only became as such with ME2. It can be a matter of perspective as to whether returning it to its ME1 roots as less of a "straight shooter" would be a step backwards or a step forwards.

[yoda23]

Terror_K wrote...

Mimaiselphenai wrote...

 As opposed to everything being done for you.

I thought I'd single out this comment, simply because I feel this is one of the overall issues I have with ME2 and its oversimplification. And its a problem many games overall these days face I feel, whereby to be made more accessible and not scare of the average gamer of today, a lot of things are just done for you rather than employing any degree of thinking from the player to make their own choices. Sure, some people will say "there's no need... the choice is always obvious" or "that just unnecessarily complicates things" but I feel things have gone too far in this regard and Mass Effect 2 has become one of the casualties of this. Sure, there are those out there that feel that Baldur's Gate and NWN made things too complicated I'm sure, and that games are heading away from this need to micro-manage everything. But there's more freedom in being able to make your own choices, and you feel more like you've personally accomplished things when you make the choices yourself.

The main point is, you can go too far in both directions: too much management and not enough. ME2 is, in my mind, not enough, and this is also due to the fact there's simply not enough stuff out there to manage in the first place as much as it is to the fact that the management is just so simple that it almost does the job itself (and, in some cases, does). Once again we come to the quote "make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler" and the fact that BioWare, I feel, unfortunately crossed that line and did make things "simpler."

+1 Yes, too simple in fact. There is another post in the Gen Discussion pertaining to this very issue. It referred to Bioware essentially playing the game for us. Less depth really is a disturbing trend for this fantastic company. i.e. Press button to Probe Uranus, over and over again. And there are some unlocks that seem to be there, like on Omega, but just never fully materialize. (Don't want to spoil it now do we.) Folks at Bioware need to remember why we cared about their games. It was not and it never was about the loot, or the ability to crouch or run to cover, it was always about the story, the RPG story elements that, I am sorry to say, lose a good deal when they become oversimplified. A rich and complex experience is what we have come to expect from Bioware and it is why I am disappointed with ME2. Difficult to begin to really fully analyze without giving away any plot spoilers. Its a shame this wasn't posted in one of the spoilers allowed sections. I really feel I have more to say on the subject...

[Dudeman315]

How does the Conduit work if it's not a wormhole? Wormholes are still within the realm of possible physics skin expose to space and not being messed up is against physics. But regardless, I personally didn't find it game breaking. I actually find ammo more game breaking because it wasn't there in ME1 and the explanation is like switching from a working perpetual motion machine to a steam engine because you get the former only goes 100mph where as the later goes 110mph.

[baller7345]

The conduit is not a wormhole, but there is a major issue with having a wormhole with you. First off a theoretical wormhole works because to points in space are linked together via either subspace or some other dimension. The key word there is points, wormholes are stationary in theoretical physics so you can't carry them around. Also skin can be exposed to space because a) we do not freeze instantly when we are exposed to the vacuum of space because there is nowhere for the heat to really go. You have to be in thermal contact with an object to transfer heat. the issus is not with exposed skin, it is the difference in pressure between the inside of your body and the vacuum which will cause the gas in your body to expand. However, none of this matters because no one's skin is ever exposed to space, they are at times exposed to atmospheres which are harmful to your body, but the gas masks pump enough 02 out to keep the atmosphere out of your lungs and the barriers used by the biotic characters presumable offers enough protection from the atmoshpere. As for the ammo system in the new game, this also makes some sense because the constant heating and cooling of the weapons is not only slower, but it will also cause stress fractures in the material which would cause them to be have to be replace much more often considering how much they are used in the game.

[baller7345]

The mass relay's are essentially a massive rail gun that with the help of mass lightening mass effect fields allow the ship to travel faster than the speed of light. Now that doesn't really work either but that is what the codex says. The conduit is a mass relay.

[Dudeman315]

But the conduit clearly is not because it teleports you inside a building without external damage to the building. We also have quantum entanglement which means that you could theoretically carry a wormhole with you. Yes technology beyond current but still possible given the laws of physics.
Jack's is since she doesn't even really wear a shirt. Also it's not freezing it's burning you have to worry about due to direct sunlight(and also burning your tongue off. Then of course there's the exposure to high energy photons. And you are right we don't know the limits of barrier except how quickly they fall to specific conditions and that they apparently conflict with shields in some way such that a biotic can't have both.
That's not the given explanation for the change to ammo. The explanation is simply bullet per time unit until you run out = better shield penetration and then you are f'd. Because I couldn't kill enough geth with 3 people in ME1 apparently to prove how great the weapons were compared to geth weapons.

And really I actually kinda liked the N7 style but, wished it could have been applied to your party(at least color. . . oh wait then we wouldn't have to pay 160MSPs to get 3 new skins) and weapons. And that armor could have been switched between missions with out a load screen to the captain's quarters.

And baller7345 you've earned my respect../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png. Also I hope we didn't bore too many people../../../images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png

Modifié par Dudeman315, 26 mars 2010 - 05:08 .

[baller7345]

Dudeman315 wrote...

But the conduit clearly is not because it teleports you inside a building without external damage to the building. We also have quantum entanglement which means that you could theoretically carry a wormhole with you. Yes technology beyond current but still possible given the laws of physics.
Jack's is since she doesn't even really wear a shirt. Also it's not freezing it's burning you have to worry about due to direct sunlight(and also burning your tongue off. Then of course there's the exposure to high energy photons. And you are right we don't know the limits of barrier except how quickly they fall to specific conditions and that they apparently conflict with shields in some way such that a biotic can't have both.
That's not the given explanation for the change to ammo. The explanation is simply bullet per time unit until you run out = better shield penetration and then you are f'd. Because I couldn't kill enough geth with 3 people in ME1 apparently to prove how great the weapons were compared to geth weapons.

And really I actually kinda liked the N7 style but, wished it could have been applied to your party(at least color. . . oh wait then we wouldn't have to pay 160MSPs to get 3 new skins) and weapons. And that armor could have been switched between missions with out a load screen to the captain's quarters.

And baller7345 you've earned my respect../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png. Also I hope we didn't bore too many people../../../images/forum/emoticons/sideways.png

LOL They can be bored if they want to.  As for the conduit it works like every other mass relay except that it connects to the supposed statue of a mass effect relay except that it wasn't a statue.  At least that is what I thought went on at the end of the first game.  I'm prett sure you get flung out of the mako (broken mako which is very rare considering it is in perfect shape at the crash site in ME2) around the point in the presidium where the other side of the relay was.  Of course if we ended up getting flung out far away from that then what I thougtht that happened is obviously wrong and it was using some technology that we don't know about.

I know that the ammo explanation isn't what they gave but hey I had to have a better reason than what we got.  The constant wear caused by the heating and cooling process made a whole lot more sense to me which anyway since it actually gives a concrete reason to why having thermal clips could be an improvement instead of just saying it is simply a way to keep shooting the gun with less drop off in cool down.

I agree with applying the N7 to your team even if it had to be applied in some lesser extent due to 12 squad mates but I still enjoy the game too much to let it bother me too much.  Unlike a lot of people (at least it seems like a lot of people but is probably only a few) I am completely open to bringing back ME 1's leveling or keeping it the same as it is now.  As well as keeping the inventory as it is now or going to a better version of a classic inventory. As long as the game remains fun and engaging to me then I won't care what they do to it, I'll have my gripes but I won't let it ruin the game for me.  Nothing will ever be perfect (aside for Ocarina of Time ) so I learn to accept the changes that are going on in the gaming industry with each of the genres and find what makes the game great instead of finding what makes the game different from what people expect.   

EDIT:
Not even going to try and fix the attrocious typing in this....too tired.  If something makes absolutely no sense chalk it up to that.   I may have went off on a tangent there but sleep depreviation has weird effects on me.

EDIT..Again:
Not everything is going to work out perfectly since it is a sci fi game.  While it tries to be a hard sci fi game its going to bring up some points that are simply not explainable or if explained may be a bit weak.  I simply go with what I feel best explains each circumstance.

Modifié par baller7345, 26 mars 2010 - 06:06 .

[Jebel Krong]

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

[quote]Jebel Krong wrote...

there's a difference between running around in a slightly unrealistic outfit and being able to carry an army's worth of different weapons/ammo/mods/armour etc. though.[/quote]

That's not what I (or the others) were having an issue with. We just wanted to be able to customise and put armour on our squaddies; we never said anything about needing to do it mid-battle and having to carry around a bunch of armours and weapons with us all the time. I'm sure a lot of people would have been happy if you could only do it on The Normandy like with Shepard.

[quote]
as long as they're sufficiently differentiated i can take or leave any arbitrary stats though (enemies auto-level so specific weapon damage won't be that helpful throughout the game).[/quote]

A lot of RPG's have enemies auto-level along with you. ME1 did too. As did KotoR, and Dragon Age Origins. Yet these games had stats too. I believe the best way to do this is for you to level-up your guns attributes via research upgrading, as well as providing more higher level weapons, but not as different levels of existing weapons. For example, ME2 could have easily employed a system where you had a bunch of weapons you found before Horizon, and then some higher level ones after it.

[/quote]
i thought the normandy upgrades idea was pretty good, actually, other than starting with low fuel capacity/slow scanning ability which made the whole planet-scanning even more tedious.[/quote]

The Normandy upgrades idea is good, but it's too linear and not enough by itself. Weapon modding and/or other forms of weapon customisation need to return, since there is no weapon customisation, only linear upgrades (which aren't helped by the fact that all weapons and upgrades are always in the same places in every game you play, meaning there's no surprise or randomness to anything).

[quote]
nobody minds more depth, it's arbitrary/traditional backwards-step rpg mechanics for the sake of it that some people do mind (i'd hate to see any kind of point-based aiming again in a game that is at least part straight shooter, for example).[/quote]

To be fair, Mass Effect was originally not "part straight shooter" and only became as such with ME2. It can be a matter of perspective as to whether returning it to its ME1 roots as less of a "straight shooter" would be a step backwards or a step forwards.
[/quote]

well, more outfits are coming, whether we like being charged for them or not. i still prefer tailored pre-set outfits to further differentiate characters, rather than dressing everyone in the same, generic armour sets.

mass effect wasn't "part straight shooter" no, but i think it would have been if BW had had the shooter experience. combat is much, much better in me2, whichever way you cut it it.