Support NeoGAF

[Patryn]

Just by the name Pathfinder and the fact that everyone has been crying for exploration yeah, it does seem obvious that it will be the new "Inquisition" so to speak. Your job will be to scout out new worlds for Earth or whatever. The "A R K C O N" makes it seem like humans are fleeing Earth, so it could take place prior to or concurrent with ME3 as some kind of Reaper avoidance thing. Or the aftermath of ME3 has left a wrecked planet, shattered relay network, and numerous alien armies stranded on Earth. So they're looking for a new home away from Earth.

Ha just kidding, that would rely too heavily on continuity, so it will probably be a totally unrelated calamity that befalls Earth

You know what I would like, that wouldn't involve a galactic calamity threat? If you simply play a team of explorers who go to another galaxy, something goes wrong and you can't get home.

The point of the game is gathering up what you need in order to get back. No giant threats, simply having to explore and deal with the races in the new areas in order to get what you need.

I don't think that would happen, because you'd have to have minimal contact with the current races, but it would allow for a very Star Trek feel to the game.

 

[DOWN]

You know what I would like, that wouldn't involve a galactic calamity threat? If you simply play a team of explorers who go to another galaxy, something goes wrong and you can't get home.

The point of the game is gathering up what you need in order to get back. No giant threats, simply having to explore and deal with the races in the new areas in order to get what you need.

I don't think that would happen, because you'd have to have minimal contact with the current races, but it would allow for a very Star Trek feel to the game.

I'm praying it isn't a save-the-Galaxy size plot. What I mean by that is just that I don't want an overt space war shooter again like ME became. I liked ME1 where we were sent to stop a virus before the infection wrecked everything from the inside, destroying each small colony. I didn't care for the all-out Reaper and Collectors encounters as much.

It would be great to be a team that was sent off on their own and you don't have an army behind you. It's you and the road less traveled, and you need to fix things without there becoming explosive panic everywhere you go like ME2 and 3 built to.

 

[prag16]

I'm praying it isn't a save-the-Galaxy size plot. What I mean by that is just that I don't want an overt space war shooter again like ME became. I liked ME1 where we were sent to stop a virus before the infection wrecked everything from the inside, destroying each small colony. I didn't care for the all-out Reaper and Collectors encounters as much.

It would be great to be a team that was sent off on their own and you don't have an army behind you. It's you and the road less traveled, and you need to fix things without there becoming explosive panic everywhere you go like ME2 and 3 built to.

I'm fine with a galaxy wide threat, as on long as it's well done, and is within the framework of a situation where there is not, as you said, explosive panic everywhere you go, and the feeling of the game telling you you're in a huge hurry at all times, even though NOT rushing has no ill effects. Kind of hurt the pacing of ME2/3 in my opinion.

 

[disastermouse]

I'm fine with a galaxy wide threat, as on long as it's well done, and is within the framework of a situation where there is not, as you said, explosive panic everywhere you go, and the feeling of the game telling you you're in a huge hurry at all times, even though NOT rushing has no ill effects. Kind of hurt the pacing of ME2/3 in my opinion.

That's pretty common in all RPGs - the 'urgency that isn't'. What's so funny is that a lot of these same games that emphasize urgency also reward thoroughness.

 

[prag16]

That's pretty common in all RPGs - the 'urgency that isn't'. What's so funny is that a lot of these same games that emphasize urgency also reward thoroughness.

True, though the effect seemed worse in this series than in others I've played. Possibly because I was way more invested in this series.

 

[texhnolyze]

I'm fine with a galaxy wide threat, as on long as it's well done, and is within the framework of a situation where there is not, as you said, explosive panic everywhere you go, and the feeling of the game telling you you're in a huge hurry at all times, even though NOT rushing has no ill effects. Kind of hurt the pacing of ME2/3 in my opinion.

Well, people hate timed events/occurences (I do). It'll definitely make more sense but it's not fun (at least for me).

They did a better job in DA Inquisition (I haven't finished it yet though). The threat is still there, but I'm not getting that huge hurry feeling like in past games like DAO or Mass Effect games. Perhaps they're indeed going to make a more settled down story in the next Mass Effect, as we're not going to play Commander Shepard who saves the galaxy anymore. I also heard that our role will be different (lower in ranks) but still at the same timeline as Shepard.

 

[rdrr gnr]

I'm fine with a galaxy wide threat, as on long as it's well done, and is within the framework of a situation where there is not, as you said, explosive panic everywhere you go, and the feeling of the game telling you you're in a huge hurry at all times, even though NOT rushing has no ill effects. Kind of hurt the pacing of ME2/3 in my opinion.

What's the canon on who "created" the Reapers? God, it would be just so terrible if they went with another great and ancient evil. It's lame if that evil is less powerful. But it's also lame if that evil is equal or more powerful. It's a lose-lose-lose. They should just run into some advanced isolationist race and capitalize on technological, military, racial, and political tension.

 

[Laughing Banana]

What's the canon on who "created" the Reapers? God, it would be just so terrible if they went with another great and ancient evil. It's lame if that evil is less powerful. But it's also lame if that evil is equal or more powerful. It's a lose-lose-lose. They should just run into some advanced isolationist race and capitalize on technological, military, racial, and political tension.

Huh?

I thought it's pretty obvious? The rogue AI created by the Leviathans...?

 

[rdrr gnr]

Huh?

I thought it's pretty obvious? The rogue AI created by the Leviathans...?

I know about Leviathans, but I mean is there like one in some of the books or codex or something that could make for an enemy. If an ancient evil had to selected from all that we already know, who or what would it be.

 

[EatChildren]

Leviathans still exist, leftover from from the DLC of the same name, potentially still alive post war. But I dunno. Another galactic threat near identical to the Reapers in danger would be unbelievably poor writing. It's textbook sequel/successor narrative to not emulate your previous threat, simply making it a bigger, badder version that for reasons was unknown or didn't exist until now. You thought Satan was the big bad? There's an even BIGGER BADDER SATAN BEHIND HIM.

ME4 will have threats and conflicts, but benefit from those conflicts being more localised or grounded. Taking the rumours on board, travelling to a new galaxy for expansion/resource acquisition and encountering new species that may or may not be friendly is a decent (if cliché) example. You've got your "bad guys", but not identical to the Reapers.

That being said I'm still not entirely sold on this being a sequel, or committed to being a sequel. I've already explained why I wish they'd just fucking pick a canon and go with it, but all comments and talk up until now has implied otherwise. Setting it in a new galaxy would be an excuse to distance from the series.

Hell, if they really wanted to pretend pander to those who want to continue their canon and be as vague as possible, they could make The Citadel or some equivalent your "home base" kinda thing. Basically the only place in the Milky Way you can actually visit, as a nexus to travel between this galaxy and the new. Small area with asset variation to reflect the galactic state of whatever your choices were throughout the trilogy, the bulk of the game and new adventure set somewhere completely different.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Leviathans still exist, leftover from from the DLC of the same name, potentially still alive post war. But I dunno. Another galactic threat near identical to the Reapers in danger would be unbelievably poor writing. It's textbook sequel/successor narrative to not emulate your previous threat, simply making it a bigger, badder version that for reasons was unknown or didn't exist until now. You thought Satan was the big bad? There's an even BIGGER BADDER SATAN BEHIND HIM.

Right. But I also wouldn't put it past them. A rogue Leviathan. Some other entity that evolved alongside Leviathans but was waiting this entire time for the Reaper threat to end.

ME4 will have threats and conflicts, but benefit from those conflicts being more localised or grounded. Taking the rumours on board, travelling to a new galaxy for expansion/resource acquisition and encountering new species that may or may not be friendly is a decent (if cliché) example. You've got your "bad guys", but not identical to the Reapers.

That being said I'm still not entirely sold on this being a sequel, or committed to being a sequel. I've already explained why I wish they'd just fucking pick a canon and go with it, but all comments and talk up until now has implied otherwise. Setting it in a new galaxy would be an excuse to distance from the series.

Hell, if they really wanted to pretend pander to those who want to continue their canon and be as vague as possible, they could make The Citadel or some equivalent your "home base" kinda thing. Basically the only place in the Milky Way you can actually visit, as a nexus to travel between this galaxy and the new. Small area with asset variation to reflect the galactic state of whatever your choices were throughout the trilogy, the bulk of the game and new adventure set somewhere completely different.

But I wouldn't want to jump galaxies and then be faced against that paritcular galaxy's big baddy, either. I think the nature of the "enemy" matters. I do not believe you need that type of galaxy-ending conflict in order for fans to care about the characters or the universe. I don't care what plot device or nonsense they employ to reach this game's new setting as long as I enjoy what that setting is composed of. No fucking human colony that is basically this galaxy's Earth. It's risky, but I'm glad they didn't pick a canon as that's just asking for nonsense unless it were set hundreds of year in the future. They would just pander to fans and Earth would undoubtedly be in trouble again.

 

[VodevilX]

Plz be an open-world, third person looter just like the first was!
I don't get, what made them think ME2 was the right way to go?

 

[Boombloxer]

Plz be an open-world, third person looter just like the first was!
I don't get, what made them think ME2 was the right way to go?

Because to many, ME2 is the better game.
I liked ME3 the best. Never 1 again.

 

[Patryn]

Plz be an open-world, third person looter just like the first was!
I don't get, what made them think ME2 was the right way to go?

ME1 wasn't open-world.

It also wasn't what I would qualify as a "looter".

But I do wish they'd go back to some of the things I liked about ME1. Early indications are that they will.

 

[DOWN]

Because to many, ME2 is the better game.
I liked ME3 the best. Never 1 again.

To people who played 2 or 3 first.

To people who played all three, starting with ME1 before ME2 was used as the hook for new action fans, the number of people who prefer ME1 stands high.

 

[Exploratory]

To people who played 2 or 3 first.

To people who played all three, starting with ME1 before ME2 was used as the hook for new action fans, the number of people who prefer ME1 stands high.

Me and all my friends have played all three games ME1 first and we all like 2 over 1.

 

[Reese-015]

Because to many, ME2 is the better game.
I liked ME3 the best. Never 1 again.

Agreed, and I played them all in order. (multiple times)
I did like 1 though, but felt like 2 improved on it a lot and 3 was easily the one I enjoyed most of all, especially with all the DLC. (though Lair of the Shadow Broker was superb)

Whenever I feel like replaying Mass Effect nowadays, I just want to replay 3. It's just by far the most fun to me as a game and has the most memorable story moments to me as well.

 

[rocksteady1983]

Still no announcement of a "complete edition" of all 3 games for ps4 and x1? Sad.

 

[VodevilX]

ME1 wasn't open-world.

It also wasn't what I would qualify as a "looter".

But I do wish they'd go back to some of the things I liked about ME1. Early indications are that they will.

Why? You could go anywhere any time, that's pretty open to me.
Also collecting better or worse items that you either sell/equip/turn into omni-gel is looting to me.
I'm not saying here, that this is the baseline for open-world, but it sure does well imo.

I'm in the middle of my rerun on the trilogy. I've played ME1&2 3 years ago, and 3 on release. I did remember, 1 was worse, because the stupid shooting, but I completely forgot, how dumb it got for the sequel. Sure it's a good game, only it really became a much more linear cover-shooter... Now I appreciate much much more the way ME1 did things, it was so much better experience!

 

[DOWN]

ME1 wasn't open-world.

It also wasn't what I would qualify as a "looter".

But I do wish they'd go back to some of the things I liked about ME1. Early indications are that they will.

How was it not open world? It had free travel across tons of open planet maps and large explorable hubs.

 

[leazo]

To people who played 2 or 3 first.

To people who played all three, starting with ME1 before ME2 was used as the hook for new action fans, the number of people who prefer ME1 stands high.

Could be the general rule but there is certainly outliers. I played ME1 before the other 2 and thinks the ranking is 2>1>3.

2 is a better "game" while 1 is a better rpg.

 

[Patryn]

How was it not open world? It had free travel across tons of open planet maps and large explorable hubs.

Systems and locations would only open up after completing other missions.

The openness of Feros, Virmire, Noveria and the like is questionable at best (most operate as a straight line).

It's not like you get the galaxy map and you can immediately hit every single location.

It did have "openness", which was nice, but compare to something like Dragon Age: Inquisition, which also isn't technically open-world.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I honestly prefer the way 3 handled loot to either 1 or 2. 1 had 10000 armor and weapon variants, almost all of which where palette swaps or mark I-X type distinctions. Supremely boring. 2 did away with the chaff, but it also got rid of almost all the actual variety as well. Weapons became uncustomizable, and while the armor was a great step in the right direction, it also lacked variety and cohesion. ME3 found the happy medium.

 

[.Anema]

Hey GAF, I'm waiting for the inevitable HD/Newgen remaster for PS4 of the Mass Effect trilogy... Should I wait or go and buy the trilogy for PS3?

 

[Last Hearth]

Could be the general rule but there is certainly outliers. I played ME1 before the other 2 and thinks the ranking is 2>1>3.

2 is a better "game" while 1 is a better rpg.

2 is a better "shooter" while 1 is a better RPG, and since I vastly prefer RPGs to Shooters, 1 is the better "game" to me.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

To people who played 2 or 3 first.

To people who played all three, starting with ME1 before ME2 was used as the hook for new action fans, the number of people who prefer ME1 stands high.

I played ME1 first and prefer ME2. I just felt that it was the most personal of the series. Although, there were some changes that I felt were unnecessary such as no planetary exploration and I hated that they shrank the Citadel.

I call ME2 my favorite game of last gen.

 

[DOWN]

Systems and locations would only open up after completing other missions.

The openness of Feros, Virmire, Noveria and the like is questionable at best (most operate as a straight line).

It's not like you get the galaxy map and you can immediately hit every single location.

It did have "openness", which was nice, but compare to something like Dragon Age: Inquisition, which also isn't technically open-world.

Okay, I think you are putting an arbitrary rule on open-world that it has to be all open without much mission progression for it to count, and by that rule, tons of games including GTA IV wouldn't count.

Open-world doesn't mean you don't need to progress to unlock more locales, as I understand it. It just means that there is free travel across large non-linear locations in and out of missions. Mass Effect has that and it doesn't really matter that there are some special linear missions in the story. If that stuff ruled it out, than many of the Assassin's Creed games wouldn't be open world by your definition either.

 

[Patryn]

Okay, I think you are putting an arbitrary rule on open-world that it has to be all open without much mission progression for it to count, and by that rule, tons of games including GTA IV wouldn't count.

Open-world doesn't mean you don't need to progress to unlock more locales, as I understand it. It just means that there is free travel across large non-linear locations in and out of missions. Mass Effect has that and it doesn't really matter that there are some special linear missions in the story. If that stuff ruled it out, than many of the Assassin's Creed games wouldn't be open world by your definition either.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I still don't see how ME1 qualifies as open-world.

Regardless, all indications are that ME4 will be more open-world. Again, look at Dragon Age Inquisition, a game the Bioware has been touting as the blueprint for all their future games to see what we should expect.

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

ME1 and ME2 are essentially different genres. ME1 is an RPG with action elements. ME2 is an action game with RPG elements. (And ME3 was basically an updated version of ME2.) For the next game, I would enjoy a return to the RPG format. I like shooters and all that, but I miss the inventory and skill tree depth of the first game (even if they needed some refinement).

I wouldn't call any of the games "open world." I consider a game "open world" if it's a single zone (maybe with separate interior zones), where you can travel from one end to the other without loading screens. But Mass Effect is definitely big, and the first game let you complete the main missions in any order, which made it feel very unrestrictive.

 

[Ralemont]

I hated ME1's inventory, and I really like how the different guns within a gun class in ME2/ME3 are all viable but simply depend on your playstyle/taste.

 

[VodevilX]

Also you could get godlike before progressing with main quest, sure you had to do the side quests, you could almost call it farming xp and money, but getting the Spectre class weapons early on was great!

My other problem is: those color palettes in ME2... ugly too many ugly redish crap... bah

 

[Poodlestrike]

ME1 and ME2 are essentially different genres. ME1 is an RPG with action elements. ME2 is an action game with RPG elements. (And ME3 was basically an updated version of ME2.) For the next game, I would enjoy a return to the RPG format. I like shooters and all that, but I miss the inventory and skill tree depth of the first game (even if they needed some refinement).

I wouldn't call any of the games "open world." I consider a game "open world" if it's a single zone (maybe with separate interior zones), where you can travel from one end to the other without loading screens. But Mass Effect is definitely big, and the first game let you complete the main missions in any order, which made it feel very unrestrictive.

I would argue (like I did a few posts ago) that ME3 had a superior inventory system and skill tree to both ME2 and ME1. So... yeah. Bringing back squad armor is pretty much the only thing left, IMO.

 

[Ralemont]

I would argue (like I did a few posts ago) that ME3 had a superior inventory system and skill tree to both ME2 and ME1. So... yeah. Bringing back squad armor is pretty much the only thing left, IMO.

It'd be nice if they do what Inquisition did, which was have the appearance alter but still transform the armor model a bit to fit the character.

 

[Poodlestrike]

It'd be nice if they do what Inquisition did, which was have the appearance alter but still transform the armor model a bit to fit the character.

That's pretty much what I'm expecting they'll do. Gonna be glorious

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

I would argue (like I did a few posts ago) that ME3 had a superior inventory system and skill tree to both ME2 and ME1. So... yeah. Bringing back squad armor is pretty much the only thing left, IMO.

I wouldn't say that ME2 or ME3 had an inventory system, per se. You weren't buying, collecting, or assigning specific individual items; instead you just had an unlimited number of a certain item whenever you discovered or bought that item. That's the reason you couldn't sell anything in ME2 and ME3. I prefer a real inventory system, where you have a limited number of a certain item, and you have to prioritize which party member it goes to--or just sell it for cash. ME1's problem was that it just had too many item variants, with too little difference between them. The sequels got some of this right, by offering fewer but more varied items. But they went too far, by replacing a proper inventory with magical infinite item templates. That was a mistake, not a happy medium.

ME2 and ME3 had a good thing going in choosing between different perks as skills increased (although ME2 only did this when you maxed out a skill). But ME2 had a pathetically small number of skills and skill levels, and ME3 didn't expand them as much as it could have. ME1's separate cooldown timers for each skill was also better design, because it incentivized players to try new skills while their favorites were unavailable. ME2 introduced universal cooldown out of necessity, given the incredibly small number of skills compared to the original game.

The original Mass Effect's inventory (and to a lesser extent, its skill tree) really needed refinement. So did planetary exploration. (The hard-to-navigate landscapes and the reused building interiors did a lot to dull the thrill of exploration.) But instead, BioWare indulged in a nasty habit of throwing away elements when they didn't really need to--when refinement would have gone much further toward making a better game. I hope the Montreal team doesn't have the same problem.

I've been playing Dragon Age on PS4 and damn does it look good. It's running on the Frostbite engine? Will ME4 use that too?

Yes.

 

[dralla]

I've been playing Dragon Age on PS4 and damn does it look good. It's running on the Frostbite engine? Will ME4 use that too?

I'm assuming we're gonna be playing as a human again in ME4, I really hope they give the female default the same treatment as the male, scan a person like they did with male Shepard. I loved FemShep but she never looked quite right next to everyone else in your squad, she looked like an NPC.

 

[DOWN]

I've been playing Dragon Age on PS4 and damn does it look good. It's running on the Frostbite engine? Will ME4 use that too?

I'm assuming we're gonna be playing as a human again in ME4, I really hope they give the female default the same treatment as the male, scan a person like they did with male Shepard. I loved FemShep but she never looked quite right next to everyone else in your squad, she looked like an NPC.

Yes, Frostbite and much of the tech and structures of Dragon Age are confirmed to be part of the Mass Effect sequel's build. And yes, human.

Also fem Shep ruined my ME3 collector's edition. She looks like a fake CGI fan service character they made up for the last game and is totally out of place with the rest of the series merchandise and looks way less impressive than the Vanderloo model.

 

[jmood88]

I want Mass Effect 1's exploration with 2 and 3's detail in the side mission environments. Being able to go to a new planet was cool in the first game but having the exact same buildings over and over again got old.

 

[SmartWaffles]

Hey GAF, I'm waiting for the inevitable HD/Newgen remaster for PS4 of the Mass Effect trilogy... Should I wait or go and buy the trilogy for PS3?

EA no longer hold a license for unreal engine 3 so next gen collection is not gonna happen.

 

[DOWN]

EA no longer hold a license for unreal engine 3 so next gen collection is not gonna happen.

That's not really accurate. They absolutely could work out a remaster if they wanted. But EA doesn't do remasters, which is a far more likely indicator that they won't change they ways now.

 

[prag16]

Plz be an open-world, third person looter just like the first was!
I don't get, what made them think ME2 was the right way to go?

No no no Mass Effect doesn't need to be Skyrim in space. ME1 wasn't fully open world, and "looter" is a stretch too. And as others said, many (most?) considered 2 and 3 to be much better games. Though that doesn't mean a thing or two from 1 shouldn't be carried over to the new game.

 

[VodevilX]

No no no Mass Effect doesn't need to be Skyrim in space. ME1 wasn't fully open world, and "looter" is a stretch too. And as others said, many (most?) considered 2 and 3 to be much better games. Though that doesn't mean a thing or two from 1 shouldn't be carried over to the new game.

Oh, no I never meant it to be Skyrim like. Just keep it close to the first ME, with the combat of the rest. That's the way to go! Anyway as I've played it last weekend, the first game reminded me of KOTOR, probably realizing that was the main reason, why I loved it so much more this time around, and playing the sequel feels so off... Like i said, I like wandering around getting forward with my levels and strength before I head into late game with tougher enemies. And that is hardly enjoyable the way ME2 does it with it's non freedom friendly "mission" system.

 

[prag16]

Oh, no I never meant it to be Skyrim like. Just keep it close to the first ME, with the combat of the rest. That's the way to go! Anyway as I've played it last weekend, the first game reminded me of KOTOR, probably realizing that was the main reason, why I loved it so much more this time around, and playing the sequel feels so off... Like i said, I like wandering around getting forward with my levels and strength before I head into late game with tougher enemies. And that is hardly enjoyable the way ME2 does it with it's non freedom friendly "mission" system.

Gotcha. The KOTOR games are among my favorite of all time. Moving some of the concepts back in that direction (in a modern way) a little bit would be cool no doubt.

 

[Boombloxer]

I would argue (like I did a few posts ago) that ME3 had a superior inventory system and skill tree to both ME2 and ME1. So... yeah. Bringing back squad armor is pretty much the only thing left, IMO.

Considering 3 has the best combat in the series, and that it transferred to multiplayer; I'd be really surprised if it went back to anything like the first 2.

Honestly, if I just have 3's combat/multiplayer with 2's story, I'd be a happy man.

 

[TC McQueen]

I wouldn't say that ME2 or ME3 had an inventory system, per se. You weren't buying, collecting, or assigning specific individual items; instead you just had an unlimited number of a certain item whenever you discovered or bought that item. That's the reason you couldn't sell anything in ME2 and ME3. I prefer a real inventory system, where you have a limited number of a certain item, and you have to prioritize which party member it goes to--or just sell it for cash. ME1's problem was that it just had too many item variants, with too little difference between them. The sequels got some of this right, by offering fewer but more varied items. But they went too far, by replacing a proper inventory with magical infinite item templates. That was a mistake, not a happy medium.

ME2 and ME3 had a good thing going in choosing between different perks as skills increased (although ME2 only did this when you maxed out a skill). But ME2 had a pathetically small number of skills and skill levels, and ME3 didn't expand them as much as it could have. ME1's separate cooldown timers for each skill was also better design, because it incentivized players to try new skills while their favorites were unavailable. ME2 introduced universal cooldown out of necessity, given the incredibly small number of skills compared to the original game.

The original Mass Effect's inventory (and to a lesser extent, its skill tree) really needed refinement. So did planetary exploration. (The hard-to-navigate landscapes and the reused building interiors did a lot to dull the thrill of exploration.) But instead, BioWare indulged in a nasty habit of throwing away elements when they didn't really need to--when refinement would have gone much further toward making a better game. I hope the Montreal team doesn't have the same problem.

Well, the thing is... a conventional inventory doesn't make sense in the Mass Effect universe. This is a setting where you can 3D print fully functional, durable guns and armor. You shouldn't be picking up tons of loot off of dead bodies when you have a freaking tricorder on your arm that can scan the gun/mod/armor/whatever or buy the blueprints from a shop, upload the data to a special 3D printer, and make infinite copies of it. The only stuff that you actually have to get are the resources to make guns, and you don't really need a conventional inventory to tell a player he or she has _____ tons of _______.

As for the skill trees, I'll take less levels with different obvious effects over dozens of levels with minor increases to stat numbers with a handful of unlocked skills.

 

[Daemul]

Considering 3 has the best combat in the series, and that it transferred to multiplayer; I'd be really surprised if it went back to anything like the first 2.

Honestly, if I just have 3's combat/multiplayer with 2's story, I'd be a happy man.

ME2 had a story?

 

[texhnolyze]

I've been missing out. Is there any kind of list of everything we know so far for the next Mass Effect?
I found one on Reddit, but I think it's a bit outdated.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Mass Effect's lore makes more sense in the context of a Deus Ex style RPG than it does a traditional cRPG. And it would be better served by going in that direction. Many of the design decisions in ME1 felt really silly, looting guns and armor off random things. Dice aiming. Big long skill trees with almost no changes at each level. It was an RPG in that vein merely because of design inertia at bioware, that's the kind of game they usually made so they kept making them like that. KOTOR 3: This Time Without A License! They weren't built like that because it made sense or was the best way to do things.

 

[Hyperzephyrian]

Well, the thing is... a conventional inventory doesn't make sense in the Mass Effect universe.

It made enough sense to be present in the first game. I know that the in-game lore justification is that the Normandy SR-2 has facilities to "minifacture" items. But this is a flimsy justification for a design change. I'm saying that I prefer the previous design choice of having a traditional, limited inventory; how they justify it in the lore matters much less to me.

As for the skill trees, I'll take less levels with different obvious effects over dozens of levels with minor increases to stat numbers with a handful of unlocked skills.

As I said before, the addition of perks in ME3 (they were barely present in ME2) was a good change. I'd just like to see more skills per class. ME1 had some overlap in skills between classes.

 

[Dennis]

gackdammit