DeaconKnowledge
Member
I romanced the shit out of space bitch Ashley. She was way hotter than Liara. Case closed.Vuffster said:
Mass Effect Franchise bitching thread
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
GeorgioCostanzaX
Member
Darknessbear said:
That DLC was pretty killer I have to admit but unfortunately Bioware listened to the people complaining about the Mako sections and the shooting. I really like everything else about ME2 though so hopefully they've listened to feedback yet again.
Woody Invincible
Banned
I finally got around to the Arrival DLC yesterday. At least we all know a bit more about mass effect relays. And how expendable Batarian scum is.
GeorgioCostanzaX
Member
Woody Invincible said:
Hmmm I didn't play through bring down the Sky on my last playthrough of ME1 on my new console and have yet to play The Arrival...I might have to go back and do that.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
zlatko said:
Stats
ME1: incremented by 1-2% per point, many points per level, many abilities were redundant
ME2: incremented by 10-20% per point, few points per level, no redundant abilities
Streamlining: fewer points do the same thing and make more sense, removed redundant abilities.
Result: Same outcome through simpler and more sensible design.
Weapons
ME1: different manufacturers, ammo/upgrade slots, frequently obtaining slightly more powerful weapons to equip, licenses allow new weapons for purchase in Normandy.
ME2: removed manufacturers, ammo powers moved to abilities, removed upgrade slots in favor of upgrade techs, added variety of weapons, removed licenses
Streamlining: Majority of incrementally more powerful weapons were nothing more than inventory filler to be sold and never to be equipped, ammo powers as ability in effect simply removed the slot in the weapon (less inventory chore), swapped upgrade slots per weapon for upgrade techs per weapon type.
Result: Less inventory chores (selling, inventory filling, breaking down into omnigel) at the expense of superficial complexity in managing weapons.
Armor
ME1: different manufacturers, alien race-specific armor, upgrade/ability slots, out of the dozens found/bought only a few worth equipping during the game, shield stat per armor.
ME2: no manufacturers, no upgrade/ability slots, no race-specific armor, upgrade parts available to purchase replaces shield stat/upgrade slots per armor, added color and part customization.
Streamlining: Replaced set color/stat per armor with customization, replaced upgrade slots per armor with upgrade techs for all armor.
Result: Less inventory chores, more customization for appearance, no loss of incremental upgrading affect on gameplay (buying permanent +shield vs. buying +shield item to equip).
Inventory isn't a terrible loss. Swapping chars in ME1 required unequipping them for the replacement char. PITA. The majority of what you accumulated was useless other than fodder for selling/omnigel. Stats are similar between the two games, but in ME2 there aren't the small increments and redundant abilities (increasing assault rifle and solder both increase assault rifle damage, for example), which is an improvement.
There really aren't significant changes in ME2 that adversely affect the RPG-ness, the streamlining simply moves things around, removing nonsense where possible while adding armor customization and even more powers/abilities for more combat options.
CrocMother
Banned
My how this thread has blossomed.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Patryn said:
I was just about to edit that. Not a huge loss, as there is a reason to change a squadmate's armor twice (edit: 3 times) during the entirety of ME1.
GeorgioCostanzaX
Member
Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
I did like customizing the weapons with multiple ammo types and add ons though but inventory management was horrid in ME1. You really had to be on top of it too otherwise you'd find yourself spending 5 minutes reducing useless items to omni gel in order to free up inventory slots.
Fimbulvetr
Member
MrMephistoX said:
Didn't help that the UI was designed to be as obtuse as possible.
Yep. Gameplay-wise, I really think that ME2 did not significantly reduce the number of interesting decisions you make regarding how to level and equip your characters; it just reduced the tedium involved. The number of interesting decisions may actually have increased, due to branching final power levels. (That said, having to wait 3-4 levels to upgrade an ability is pretty frustrating sometimes.)Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
Sure, I'm glad that ME3 will try to find a nice middle ground between the two games -- more customizing, rather than simply upgrading, of weapons and armor would be nice. But ME1 didn't really have terribly deep character customization, just ten or twelve levels of items and abilities, which gradually accumulated as you killed things.
ChoklitReign
Member
The skills they kept felt dumbed down. Also, teams should not switch ammo types.Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
You never felt progress because most of the weapon types never got better after the second or third type. You couldn't even change weapons and armor outside the Normandy. I honestly prefer the old inventory.
And don't forget about ammo. Bioware cannot for its life design a good ammo replenishing system.
Again, little progress felt because the armor upgrades were insignificant. Why shouldn't you feel like a demigod at the end of the game? It also looked all the same, aesthetically.
All of these are examples of dumbing down role-playing features to turn it into a simple shooter. I have hope for some of the combat changes in ME3, but it will never be an RPG again.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
ChoklitReign said:
Superficial differences. I'm not following the teams switching ammo types part.
ChoklitReign said:
You could swap weapons during missions. You could power up a weapon type to do a lot more damage and shoot more bullets per thermal clip with upgrade techs. The old inventory was a PITA, and the options it presented were superficial.
ChoklitReign said:
It's universal ammo, a creative (albeit kind of lame) solution, and there's nothing too out of the ordinary about reloading. It beats overheating and having to wait behind cover.
ChoklitReign said:
There are significant upgrades to shield and health by the end of the game, and the few parts did have some stat increases that mirrored the upgrade slot items.
ChoklitReign said:
They turned it into a fun shooter, and they got rid of only the badly implemented parts of the RPG aspects of the game.
Grenades is a great example of improved design- in ME1 you threw them like shit, you had to manage another item for grenade type (more inventory) and you had to accumulate stock. Now they are more useful in combat- they arc to a target, it's an ability instead of stock, and are upgraded through the ability instead of the incremental item upgrades.
The dumbing down you refer to, is simply a misunderstanding of the replacement or removal of unnecessarily complicated/difficult features, mostly in the inventory. Stats are effectually the same in both games, with ME2 handling them much more sensibly without the redundancy and small increments.
They're widely held opinions, and I'd love to see someone argue that ME1's absolute mess of an inventory system was less of a chore than 2's.Patryn said:
The problem is that most people who criticize ME2's inventory system aren't looking at it from the perspective that 1's inventory is better than 2's (it's not), it's that a vastly improved inventory in the spirit of the first game (lots of weapons and armor to customize your characters and give a sense of progression in your equipment, something that many RPGs have done) would have been much more engrossing than ME2's typical shooter-like one weapon to fill in each role.
It's the difference between actually improving what didn't work and just throwing it out and making a standard cover shooter.
Heavy's Sandvich
Member
I'm on the last mission.
The game is rubbish.
The bulk of it was loyalty missions and almost all of them were poorly done.
ME2 is a poor third-person shooter. Won't be playing the 3rd unless it plays like the first.
ME1 is such a charming game.
The game is rubbish.
The bulk of it was loyalty missions and almost all of them were poorly done.
ME2 is a poor third-person shooter. Won't be playing the 3rd unless it plays like the first.
ME1 is such a charming game.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
The way I see it, Mass Effect 3 is aimed at 3 groups:
1) The shooter crowd. These folks demand to be able to shoot shit and watch shit blow up while shouting cool shit. Bioware is appealing to this group by focusing their marketing on "kick-ass action".
2) The weird fucks on the Bioware forums who spend their days perusing the internet for Shepardx(ME character-most likely Tali) fanart. They are being appealed to by the promise of continued romance options. Plus, we have yet to see Tali in ME3, so for these people, that's one hell of a carrot on a stick.
3) Bioware fans. They are expected to buy the game on brand recognition.
1) The shooter crowd. These folks demand to be able to shoot shit and watch shit blow up while shouting cool shit. Bioware is appealing to this group by focusing their marketing on "kick-ass action".
2) The weird fucks on the Bioware forums who spend their days perusing the internet for Shepardx(ME character-most likely Tali) fanart. They are being appealed to by the promise of continued romance options. Plus, we have yet to see Tali in ME3, so for these people, that's one hell of a carrot on a stick.
3) Bioware fans. They are expected to buy the game on brand recognition.
Typographenia
Member
At the risk of redundancy...
I don't think 2's class system was a complete disaster, but it was anorexic in comparison.
I'm thankful they at least let me have more of a hands-on with the armor customization, because I have the ability to influence my stats in some way now. Too bad it still means next to nothing without seeing a change somewhere, outside of the armor model.
I honestly would not have minded the changes as much if they hadn't just tossed so much out from the first. Most of the things others, and myself included, hated about the first game's design in those regards could have easily been remedied with some detail work. Instead they remove control from the player and just tell us "whoa, you just got 50% more whatever! Good stuff!" That seems more like jingling keys in the players face to make me feel like something significant has actually changed. Let the player see and control that stuff more so they get some kind of sense accomplishment from it.
I don't know about anyone else, but I never felt like I had achieved something with a 50% shield increase. In ME1, though, I felt awesome seeing my stats climb when I would find a better omni-tool or whatever. That feedback was severely lacking.
What about the complete removal of paragon and renegade benefits from ME1's system?Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
I don't think 2's class system was a complete disaster, but it was anorexic in comparison.
I also have no idea what gun is better than another. All information I have to work from is total ammo and ammo clip size. I hated losing that data from 1 to 2 because now the upgrading of the weapons means nothing to me when that "X% increase!" isn't visible at some capacity. That's great, I just got a 50% health boost, but I would have loved to have seen what that really means to me as a player. It's about as empty of a value as possible.Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
Result should have been: DLC costumes!Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
I'm thankful they at least let me have more of a hands-on with the armor customization, because I have the ability to influence my stats in some way now. Too bad it still means next to nothing without seeing a change somewhere, outside of the armor model.
When did stat management and item equipping become nonsense? Isn't that the standard for almost every kind of RPG?Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
I honestly would not have minded the changes as much if they hadn't just tossed so much out from the first. Most of the things others, and myself included, hated about the first game's design in those regards could have easily been remedied with some detail work. Instead they remove control from the player and just tell us "whoa, you just got 50% more whatever! Good stuff!" That seems more like jingling keys in the players face to make me feel like something significant has actually changed. Let the player see and control that stuff more so they get some kind of sense accomplishment from it.
I don't know about anyone else, but I never felt like I had achieved something with a 50% shield increase. In ME1, though, I felt awesome seeing my stats climb when I would find a better omni-tool or whatever. That feedback was severely lacking.
Well, yeah, ME2 didn't give us a proper inventory system at all while ME1 gave us far too much junk to manage in the menus. There's a very simple middle ground solution that they just didn't take, and it sucks that they did so.tiff said:
ChoklitReign
Member
1. One of the ammo power options is team use. If you give that to one of your teammates, everyone is stuck using it, including Shepard. It's avoidable on replays, but it should be fixed. IMO I didn't like most of the powers.Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
2. I don't remember magazine upgrades. Was it in the DLC? I just wanted more weapon variety.
3. The universal ammo was handled poorly. It didn't prioritize empty ammos as much as it should have, and you just ended out of it too much.
4. The suits looked boring to me compared to ME1.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
In Mass Effect 1 I could build my gun to my specifications. I wasn't pigeonholed into 3 possible permutations per gun for the entire game, that could never change because they're tied to my character. Awful.
Typographenia
Member
You must not have played as Vanguard.ChoklitReign said:
Charge, pull, shockwave... So good.
That was easily my favorite change to the classes was the introduction of biotic Charge. My favorite power hands down. Though, I probably used pull more than anything.
edit: Whoops, I mean, grrr, Mass Effect! I hate that series!
Xilium
Member
Excluding a handful of standouts, weren't all the weapons relatively equal in useability and it merely came down to shooting preference? In other words, one gun would have high damage but a low clip size and slow fire rate, on the opposite end you had a gun with low damage but a high fire rate and a large clip and then you would have another 1 or 2 guns that existed somewhere in the middle, usually with some special property (better vs. Shields or something). I don't recall the weapons really progressing except maybe excluding your starting equipment.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
The progression was pretty much constrained to damage. Gun usage was tied to protection: use your fast firing low damage gun for shields, slow shot weapons for armor. Rinse and repeat.Xilium said:
R_thanatos
Member
Well i only played ME 2 on PS3 . so i'll just say what i think about it .
it's just that , in this game there are good ideas . the universe is well contructed overall . but ME lacked a driving force , side questing and recruting is great but i wish there was something more than that in the end.
Also since ME2 is focalized on the recruting .. there is no progression toward the difficulty. heck i don't know that there is a level number. sure i didn't play on the last difficulty but i expected some changes on NORMAL difficulty .. i didn't found them.
Good characters , nice LORE , weird design on the gameplay and the story ( WTF everyone i recruted JUST happenned THIS ONCE to come with me on that shuttle ?? I'm ...surprised) What is the equipage for anyway ( except your recruits ?? ) i can navigate and do everything with JOKER and the IA . the "trap" that this was is just "stupid" IMO on a gameplay standpoint.
The lair of teh shadow broker almost made me play the first on PC to understand liara better... almost
it's just that , in this game there are good ideas . the universe is well contructed overall . but ME lacked a driving force , side questing and recruting is great but i wish there was something more than that in the end.
Also since ME2 is focalized on the recruting .. there is no progression toward the difficulty. heck i don't know that there is a level number. sure i didn't play on the last difficulty but i expected some changes on NORMAL difficulty .. i didn't found them.
Good characters , nice LORE , weird design on the gameplay and the story ( WTF everyone i recruted JUST happenned THIS ONCE to come with me on that shuttle ?? I'm ...surprised) What is the equipage for anyway ( except your recruits ?? ) i can navigate and do everything with JOKER and the IA . the "trap" that this was is just "stupid" IMO on a gameplay standpoint.
The lair of teh shadow broker almost made me play the first on PC to understand liara better... almost
Xilium
Member
Maybe I didn't word that right but I meant within each weapon category. Damage didn't always go up for each new weapon you got. Assault Rifles for instance, in the order you will get them (I just went ahead and looked it up on the wiki):DeaconKnowledge said:
M-8 Avenger (Starting AR)
Base Damage: 10.8
Damage Multipliers (Armor / Barriers / Shields): x1.25 / x1.25 / x1.25
Default ammo: 40 / 400
Fire Rate: Full-Auto/
M-15 Vindicator
Base Damage: 36.8
Damage Multipliers (Armor / Barriers / Shields): x1.25 / x1.25 / x1.25
Default ammo: 24 / 96
Fire Rate: 5-Round Burst
Geth Pulse Rifle
Base Damage: 10.8
Damage Multipliers (Armor / Barriers / Shields): x1.15 / x1.35 / x1.35
Default ammo: 40 / 480
Fire Rate: Full-Auto
M-76 Revenant
Base Damage: 21.3
Damage Multipliers (Armor / Barriers / Shields): x1.4 / x1.2 / x1.2
Default ammo: 80 / 480
Fire Rate: Full-Auto
The DLC guns follow a similar pattern but other than the Avenger becoming irrelevant in later levels, the other 3 (and possibly the DLC ARs) are purely based on preference or necessity. The second gun you get has the highest base damage but the smallest clip size, smallest spare ammo capacity, and isn't full-auto (though I believe you could pulse it to get a similar effect). The final weapon you get has median base damage and lower barrier/shield penetration than even the starting gun but has the largest clip size and highest armor penetration. Basically, I felt the weapons system in ME2 didn't provide progression as much as it provided additional options.
As far as the upgrade system goes, I felt that they were just too incremental. I mean, a 10% upgraded to damage on the Revenant AR is only an increase of 2 damage. By the time you built up enough of those to matter (say 50%), you're now up against enemies that use 2 types of protection (i.e. Armor and Barrier) which effectively nullifies your damage upgrades.
The system in the first game was definitely sloppily put together but it made more sense in the context of an RPG. ME2's system is more akin to a hero action game like GOW, where the new weapons you get are meant to be used against a specific set of enemies and not as a replacement for your old weapons.
Lostconfused
Member
Actually since the only class that can really use an assault rifle is the soldier that makes the Mattock the best and the only rifle worth using. Because with heightened adrenaline rush it receives the greatest damage bonus but unlike any other it's rate of fire isn't effected.
I agree that Bioware tried to design their weapons to be more similar to 3rd person shooters. Which makes sense and fits with the shift towards a more shooter focused gameplay. Unfortunately the results were mediocre at best.
I agree that Bioware tried to design their weapons to be more similar to 3rd person shooters. Which makes sense and fits with the shift towards a more shooter focused gameplay. Unfortunately the results were mediocre at best.
HDgaming42
Member
The problem was with the inventory management!!!Wolfgunblood Garopa said:
I enjoyed having multiple weapons and armor from different manufacturers with different backstories! It helped "sell" the universe to me. I like having choice. Some of the armor designs in ME1 were really nice. When my characters were leveled far enough I'd equip them based on visual preference as opposed to their stats, just to mix things up and keep things fresh.
Things that provide back-story and believability to your universe do not warrant "streamlining". I think this is where there is a disconnect between two schools of thought.
I like having lots of options and dicking with weapons and armor. "Simplifying" it for me doesn't make me happy, it makes me feel as if you have removed things from a game that already had them. If BioWare had kept things as they were and just fixed that train-wreck of an inventory system (I never played the PC version) I'd have been happy. Instead it came across as dumbing the system down, and taking away what was an enjoyable experience learning about a multitude of weapons and armors.
ChoklitReign
Member
Actually that was my favorite class. I don't remember if it had shockwave. But charge was badass and the most useful.Typographenia said:
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Honestly my biggest problem with the nerfed inventory is that they removed all customization by no longer letting you slot in ammo effects, buffs, and armor abilities.
Typographenia
Member
I wish. : (eznark said:
There just seems like there is no way this could possibly be a good thing for the overall narrative. I pray they prove me wrong, but I'm already anticipating legendarily awful things to come from this scenario.
Heck yeah, vanguards represent.ChoklitReign said:
I screwed up playing vanguard for the longest time. I focused more on shockwave and pull, until I decided to give charge a try. After that, I redistributed my stats and never looked back.
Xilium
Member
Well the Mattock has the smallest clip size and spare ammo capacity of all the ARs (16/64) and is semi-automatic which admittedly might not matter as much if you're just spamming adrenaline rush. It has impressive base damage (the highest) but it's still relatively weak against shields and barriers so it is still in balance with the other guns for the most part. And this is true for all weapon categories, I just chose AR as statistically, soldier was by far and away the most used class.Lostconfused said:
P.S. Someone mentioned the special ammo being moved from weapon customization to class ability as being a good thing, which is only true if you are playing a class that has said special ammo ability. As someone that played as an Adept, I didn't have the option to use said ammo (except on a second playthrough).
Lostconfused
Member
If by balanced you mean it isn't the most hilariously broken weapon in the game then probably yes. But it's still pretty much the best gun in the game for the soldier class.Xilium said:
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
eznark said:
seconded. It's so random, so bad.
My guess is that Bioware is setting its universe up for galactic death by making everyone unlikeable.
Fimbulvetr
Member
Billychu said:
You can invite her back to your ship.
Lostconfused
Member
A subsection of delusional fans complaining about Shepard being a guy would also be rather entertaining.Billychu said:
Fimbulvetr
Member
Billychu said:
It's post game DLC man, s'not like you had much of anything to do even if she were to join.
Lostconfused
Member
Same here. I am just saying we all know it's going to happen so might as well have some fun with it.Billychu said:
The only part that BLEW ME AWAY in ME1 was the cutscenes near the end of the final battle
which was awesome, and epic.
Approaching Omega Blew me away immediately in ME2 and the back story of it and how it operates is awesome and reminds me of Peter F. Hamilton. The game seems more epic especially without the shell of planet exploration one was allowed with the Mako.
I just want to explore a huge, futuristic metropolis a la GTA
where the Citadel is attacked
Approaching Omega Blew me away immediately in ME2 and the back story of it and how it operates is awesome and reminds me of Peter F. Hamilton. The game seems more epic especially without the shell of planet exploration one was allowed with the Mako.
I just want to explore a huge, futuristic metropolis a la GTA
Zeitgeister said:seconded. It's so random, so bad.
My guess is that Bioware is setting its universe up for galactic death by making everyone unlikeable.
I'm hoping they destroy all of their franchises, get shuttered by EA and are forced to go back to making a Baldur's Gate for the PC only.