Mass Effect 3

[greylord]

reposted some of my thoughts on new info I put on BW's forum...

 

NEGATIVES!

 

 

Mods returning, swap out different parts such as barrels, scopes (effect both the weapon

[Enoch]

Garrus is indeed one of their better characters, but I do wonder whether they're out of ideas. His character arc in ME2 was almost exactly the same as his character arc in ME1. It was well executed, but I can't help but feeling that the guy needs some depth beyond repeating the "Good Cop v. Vigilante Who Gets Results" debate again.

[entrerix]

would be interesting to see garrus fall too far in the pursuit of justice and end up just a cold blooded psycho, who when realizing what he's become is forced to off himself for his own crimes.

 

hmmm, reminds me of vhailor a bit actually. oh well

 

i'm glad they are adding more customization to the weapons, it would be good to have a decent selection of weapons to choose from, 2-3 mod slots for each, and 2-3 possible mods for each slot. don't go too crazy, but that sounds like the right amount of customization for me

[Gromnir]

bio has embraced concept over character. actual character development is difficult to achieve in a crpg such as the ones released by bio and obsidian. there just isn't enough text/dialogue available to writers to develop an original character. consider how many dialogue encounters you gets with each character over the course o' a game. if you ain't romancing the jnpc, then you gots prohibitively little opportunity to build someone unique and compelling... so bio don't try. bio (as does obsidian) focuses instead on embracing a familiar concept, and then tweaking to make kewl. am not against the writers using a concept to initial develop a character, but we expect something... more. make alien. give wings. give telepathy. *snort*

 

consider one o' bio's most popular jnpcs. hk-47? an assassin robot with a "meat bag" line? is nothing else. even gaider has conceded that hk-47 were a one-trick pony. nevertheless, hk-47 were the mostest popular kotor jnpc based on those ubiquitous Favorite Character polls. you not think bio takes notice o' such things?

 

garrus is the good cop who has the seen The System fail and is teetering on the edge o' the abyss... etc. the shtick writes itself, no? given the limited resources available to the writers, we do not blame them for embracing concepts/archetypes/clich

[Hassat Hunter]

Greylord wants a shooter instead of a RPG?

What are you doing here instead of the CoD boards then?

 

Personally I welcome the move back into the right direction. Now if only they have an actual plot this time, it may get hard for them to mess up...

[Tale]

would be interesting to see garrus fall too far in the pursuit of justice and end up just a cold blooded psycho, who when realizing what he's become is forced to off himself for his own crimes.

Garrus needs to just grow up. Taking him all herpaderp grimdark would just be absurd.

[greylord]

Greylord wants a shooter instead of a RPG?

What are you doing here instead of the CoD boards then?

 

Personally I welcome the move back into the right direction. Now if only they have an actual plot this time, it may get hard for them to mess up...

 

Talking about a game that apeals more than justa small niche of those who are hardcore RPG gamers? Such as Mass Effect 2...

 

Even ME1 wasn't a hardcore RPG, though harder then ME2. Not many cater to a niche that is smaller than a million souls anymore...

 

Though...I suppose I do play RPG's a LOT...been around since the original BG...so I can't claim to be a complete casual gamer...just one that really liked what they did with ME2 over everything they've done before on the progression of their games.

 

And also checking up regularly on DS3....

 

Plus, I can only read through the CoD threads so many times before I've read them all twice to thrice over...

 

Edited April 9, 2011 by greylord

[Ice9]

Greylord, you're list of dislikes from ME1 are the exact reasons why I like it more than the sequel. I liked the weapon customizations; dropping down to 2-3 choices per gun in ME2 felt restrictive. I liked needing to dump points into weapons to become more proficient with them. Granted, you'd assume that since Shep is some crazy successful space warrior dude he'd know how to shoot a gun properly at the start of the game but I was willing to overlook it for a sense of progression. I liked that persuade and intimidate were separate skills. Don't get me started on regenerating health; but that is neither here nor there.

 

I don't know what I'm trying to say here.

Different strokes.

[greylord]

Greylord, you're list of dislikes from ME1 are the exact reasons why I like it more than the sequel. I liked the weapon customizations; dropping down to 2-3 choices per gun in ME2 felt restrictive. I liked needing to dump points into weapons to become more proficient with them. Granted, you'd assume that since Shep is some crazy successful space warrior dude he'd know how to shoot a gun properly at the start of the game but I was willing to overlook it for a sense of progression. I liked that persuade and intimidate were separate skills. Don't get me started on regenerating health; but that is neither here nor there.

 

I don't know what I'm trying to say here.

Different strokes.

 

Yeah, I can see that. We all like different games.

 

I was one who hated the overland travel/exploration in ME1...I like mining much more than that, anyday of the week. Mining was much more fun on the PS3 version of ME2 than it was on the PC...hopefully that's an indication of what they will do for ME3. ME2 mining on the PC was a major pain...but I still preferred it over ME1 bouncing through the mountains.

 

Hated having to go through all the inventory in ME1, especially as it was all tailored to specific species. Not quite as bad as what they did with the DA2 armor customization...but still annoying. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad...if there was a better way for it to be organized than they did in ME1 and made it more generic so that your turian, krogan, or whatever allies could wear the same types of armor as humans...etc.

 

Truthfully though, the most annoying to me was the sniper rifle shakiness and aiming that didn't correlate with where you shot (which they changed in ME2 thankfully) being connected to skills...and the overland travel.

 

Don't get me wrong though, I did and do enjoy ME1. More than DAO, DAA, or DA2. I just enjoy ME2 more.

 

I also think someone at BW doesn't like EA's DRM schemes...and so enjoyed their big middle finger to EA with the Paul/Old Paul item with ME1.

 

If they went back and made the entire thing like ME1...that would be far better then them taking cues from DA2 and using that as a basis for ideas. If the PS3 version is what they are using as the engine for ME3...the differences between that and the PC version I played means that much of what they have done already are actually improvements to the original ME2...so I suppose much of that is a good indication that perhaps the changes will all be good.

[Jaesun]

Truthfully though, the most annoying to me was the sniper rifle shakiness and aiming that didn't correlate with where you shot (which they changed in ME2 thankfully) being connected to skills...

 

This utterly baffles me. Having shooting being tied to a skill which you must use skill points to increase to make it better, is a bad thing? I have never understood this.

[Orogun01]

Garrus is indeed one of their better characters, but I do wonder whether they're out of ideas. His character arc in ME2 was almost exactly the same as his character arc in ME1. It was well executed, but I can't help but feeling that the guy needs some depth beyond repeating the "Good Cop v. Vigilante Who Gets Results" debate again.

On the other hand you risk BW making a 180 on the character and you get Garrus as the first same sex option in ME3.

 

I actually like that they are consistent with their character, aside from those with multiple personality disorders people should take such drastic changes in such a short amount of time.

[Hassat Hunter]

This utterly baffles me. Having shooting being tied to a skill which you must use skill points to increase to make it better, is a bad thing? I have never understood this.

Apparently it's too hard a concept to grasp for people... "aiming"

 

See; Deus Ex, Alpha Protocol

[HoonDing]

In ME1 it wasn't really "aiming" with the sniper rifle, but rather "overcoming Parkinson's disease".

[Malcador]

Apparently it's too hard a concept to grasp for people... "aiming"

 

See; Deus Ex, Alpha Protocol

 

 

Well you're supposed to be trained already. Heh.

[Tale]

This utterly baffles me. Having shooting being tied to a skill which you must use skill points to increase to make it better, is a bad thing? I have never understood this.

It makes the shooting simply not fun. Leaves you feeling that anything below a high level of skill is completely worthless. Most abilities that improve with points don't do so by making them unable to hit the broad side of a barn, why do it with shooting then?

[Niten_Ryu]

Truthfully though, the most annoying to me was the sniper rifle shakiness and aiming that didn't correlate with where you shot (which they changed in ME2 thankfully) being connected to skills...

 

This utterly baffles me. Having shooting being tied to a skill which you must use skill points to increase to make it better, is a bad thing? I have never understood this.

 

That is actually somewhat researched topic. People (in general) find it really annoying if their individual manual skill is not all that'll matter if they shoot something. No matter if it's Modern Warfare or Quake, all developers eventually reach to same conclusion. I ran into this topic first in early days of Quake 2, back when railgun became popular. Gamers loved the fact that you could kill something from great distances away with pixel perfect precision. Counterstrike allowed all their sniper rifles to be shot unrealistically, even while jumping because people loved that.

 

I loved DeusEx sniping but over the years I've accepted that it just don't work for the majority. That's just something you can't do in modern game design. Or you can do it but prepare for whining and lost sales. This can be extended to all weapons. For example in Alpha Protocol people hated when they couldn't hit mobs with assault rifle or submachine gun if their skill was too low or they didn't wait long enough for aim to be steady. It all comes down to - "My aim was perfect, why the hell didn't mob die or at least take damage".

 

Personally I'd argue that first person shooters (and/or third person shooters) are most researched and tested from game and combat mechanics point of view. Developers have the info, they have collection of great games, they can even see the timeline for certain feature rather easily. Thus it's really foolish to go against the trend, especially if you don't test and re-test your own solution again and again. Even after ME2, Bioware still has a lot to learn from this area. Some could be said from Obsidian and Alpha Protocol (if they ever choose to do another game/brand with modern shooting mechanics).

[Monte Carlo]

Here's a revolutionary new idea that I'm positive hasn't ever been implemented in any shooter or CRPG with firearms... EVAR!

 

Options > Gameplay > Toggle realistic firearms dynamics ON / OFF (On - your firearms skill is more important than your manual skill with the mouse, the reverse is true if you switch this option Off)

 

So, you might ask, does this option mean that you can skill-dump elsewhere as firearms skill as opposed to mouse precision is meaningless in this context? Yep. So what? Either that or slave the option to the difficulty slider.

 

I really liked the Alpha Protocol firearms dynamic personally, but then again I'm not much of a FPS gamer.

[Niten_Ryu]

Here's a revolutionary new idea that I'm positive hasn't ever been implemented in any shooter or CRPG with firearms... EVAR!

 

Options > Gameplay > Toggle realistic firearms dynamics ON / OFF

 

I'm a big fan of toggles for just about everything. For some reason developers nowadays avoid 'em like plague and want all to play 'em same way... the "correct" way

[MrBrown]

... Or you could just have the firearms-skill have an effect on something else than aiming. Such as, damage, being able to use said weapons, ammo-usage, whatever scifi-reason you can come up with, etc...

[Monte Carlo]

... Or you could just have the firearms-skill have an effect on something else than aiming. Such as, damage, being able to use said weapons, ammo-usage, whatever scifi-reason you can come up with, etc...

 

Yep, works for me. Maybe enhanced criticals / stun / multiple hits like John Woo or whatever. It's an 'Awesomeness' metric.

[Gromnir]

Truthfully though, the most annoying to me was the sniper rifle shakiness and aiming that didn't correlate with where you shot (which they changed in ME2 thankfully) being connected to skills...

 

This utterly baffles me. Having shooting being tied to a skill which you must use skill points to increase to make it better, is a bad thing? I have never understood this.

 

[lots of stuff seemingly unrelated to crpgs]

 

 

bio makes crpgs. is an admitted niche market, but nowhere is it written that crpgs has gotta use shooter mechanics. in fact, for a looooooooong time, what set crpgs apart from the shooters is that success or failure o' the crpg gamer's character were dependent on the character's skills and not the gamer's reflexes. you got G-level skill in handguns and you is getting slaughtered? perhaps you needed J-level skill... or better tactics. regardless, whether or not you got Mad Gamer Skillz were irrelevant... not need to punch x and y button simultaneous while holding right trigger and left bumper while strafing. crpgs typical boasted more choice in character development and gameplay aspects than other genres precisely 'cause there were no mad twitchy skills necessary... what made gameplay engaging were not players hitting the correct combo o' buttons fast enough and accurate enough, but rather the tactical and strategic aspects o' the game. oh, and so there is no misconception, we ain't suggesting that crpgs is for smarty and cerebral folks while shooters is button-mashing baboons. any snot-nosed pre-teen with a little patience can successful complete fallout w/o much difficulty, so don't assume that we is ascribing some kinda intellectual superiority to crpg gamers--we ain't.

 

now perhaps bio wants to make shooters, or crpgs that has more shooter elements. perhaps doing so is more economic lucrative? dunno, there is already a multitude o' developers out there who is making very nice shooters. if bio wants to make shooters or they wants to make games that attract shooter fans, then niten is at least partial correct. the thing is, the computer game genres has developed separate precisely 'cause fans o' rpgs is not necessarily fans o' shooters. there is no absolute and obvious need to makes games that is more shooter-like. heck, the sims games still do very well, no? is not as if gameplay, by its very nature, must be as niten suggests.

 

am happy that folks like greylord post. obsidian is a crpg developer and their boards is understandably gonna attract a more hard-core rpg fan element than would a board dedicated to madden football or a nascar game. rpg fans can gets a bit moribund in their thinking. popular local misconception: crpgs IS. some o' the locals (particularly the codexians) suffer from a kinda reactionary approach to crpgs. crpgs IS-- there is a crpg ideal, and only the chosen few gots a clear enough vision o' the ideal crpg to give it shape and life... and apparently only such chosen has the right to comment 'pon crpgs as well. *shrug* in our estimation, there is no perfect crpg ideal, and we recognize that the genre is constantly evolving. greylord likes some crpgs, but he likes 'em for reasons far different than does Gromnir. good. is good to hear and recognize that a crpg need not appeal only to the codexian groupthink, or the obsidian majority. that being said, if we wanted to play a shooter, we would be unlikely to play obsidian or bioware games. is already a legion o' shooter games and developers inundating the market.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Volourn]

"bio makes crpgs."

 

BIO makes whatever kind of games they want. heck, their first game wans't even a RPG. LMAO

[Orogun01]

... Or you could just have the firearms-skill have an effect on something else than aiming. Such as, damage, being able to use said weapons, ammo-usage, whatever scifi-reason you can come up with, etc...

Yeah but that would mean that they would have to think and there is a strict no thinking policy at BW. Which has an "originality" clause where if you actually come up with an original idea your contract is immediately terminated, also games made by gamers for casual gamers are the worst things ever.

[greylord]

... Or you could just have the firearms-skill have an effect on something else than aiming. Such as, damage, being able to use said weapons, ammo-usage, whatever scifi-reason you can come up with, etc...

Yeah but that would mean that they would have to think and there is a strict no thinking policy at BW. Which has an "originality" clause where if you actually come up with an original idea your contract is immediately terminated, also games made by gamers for casual gamers are the worst things ever.

 

 

Ahh, they aren't that bad. My mother in law is addicted to Bejewelled...my wife loves it, and we have an ongoing contest on who has the high score on the machine.

 

Then there's Minecraft...but that's getting off topic.

 

 

I'm eagerly awaiting ME3's release. I'm thinking it's pretty interesting that

ME3 starts right after and ensuing the events of the Arrival DLC...with the trial of Shepard being interupted by the full on assault on the Earth. I wonder if they'll answer why the Reapers decided to specifically target humanity and why Earth was one of the first targets. I would have thought they'd go after humanity's main military command headquarters (I think that's not on earth) first instead of Earth...but hopefully they'll have thought of those answers prior to that

 

[GreasyDogMeat]

That is actually somewhat researched topic. People (in general) find it really annoying if their individual manual skill is not all that'll matter if they shoot something. No matter if it's Modern Warfare or Quake, all developers eventually reach to same conclusion. I ran into this topic first in early days of Quake 2, back when railgun became popular. Gamers loved the fact that you could kill something from great distances away with pixel perfect precision. Counterstrike allowed all their sniper rifles to be shot unrealistically, even while jumping because people loved that.

 

I loved DeusEx sniping but over the years I've accepted that it just don't work for the majority. That's just something you can't do in modern game design. Or you can do it but prepare for whining and lost sales. This can be extended to all weapons. For example in Alpha Protocol people hated when they couldn't hit mobs with assault rifle or submachine gun if their skill was too low or they didn't wait long enough for aim to be steady. It all comes down to - "My aim was perfect, why the hell didn't mob die or at least take damage".

 

Personally I'd argue that first person shooters (and/or third person shooters) are most researched and tested from game and combat mechanics point of view. Developers have the info, they have collection of great games, they can even see the timeline for certain feature rather easily. Thus it's really foolish to go against the trend, especially if you don't test and re-test your own solution again and again. Even after ME2, Bioware still has a lot to learn from this area. Some could be said from Obsidian and Alpha Protocol (if they ever choose to do another game/brand with modern shooting mechanics).

I might be a bit odd in that I really don't mind inaccurate aiming that requires skill points/xp/etc to improve in a RPG, but I hate it in my shooters. This killed the original Brothers in Arms for me. You line up the iron sites of your weapon on an enemy, fire and the bullet would hit five feet off to the side of an enemy, at relatively close ranges. The devs just made the shooting bad to force the player to rely on their squad. Between giving orders I actually wanted to you know, shoot someone in a shooter.

 

The recent complaints about AP's aiming pissed me off because you actually can get critical hits and kills with weapons even at their lowest skill levels, you just have to leave your gun on them for an extended amount of time to get the aiming reticle to appear and close in. If you watch the first minute of this video review you will see how many modern gamers tried to play AP. Like a shooter. NO time is given to actually aim the pistol so that an aimed shot can be taken. In fact, the reviewer fires so quickly that not once during that minute of gameplay does the reticle even START to appear because he shoots so fast.