Mass Effect 3's level up screen spotted. Looks great.

[Netrigan]

I'd agree with you for the most part. Although given that there are only about half a dozen missions in ME1, half of them being bad is a pretty sizable chunk. I enjoyed the hell out of the story in ME1 and that was the only reason I picked up ME2. Of course, ME2 serves up a fairly crap story, but IMO much more varied combat missions... being able to pick some high ground to play sniper makes a wonderful change from the first.

And while the Mako was pure shit on wheels, removing the vehicles completely (until the DLC added the much more fun Hammerhead) was a pretty massive over-reaction. I think it would have been quite a bit of fun to land vehicles and not know if you're were walking into a simple objective or a pretty major side mission.

Yeah, the story in ME2 was crap, but I think thats again tied to the missions. The story WAS the missions, and all the missions were almost always an excuse to shoot hordes of enemies. Not once did ME2 approach the level ME1 showed in Noveria, where you have to navigate corperate buerocracy to begin the actual combat. Noveria wasnt by any means perfect, but compared to ME2, its near on the pinnacle of what Mass Effect should have been.

As for combat variety, I dont agree with that. I felt shoe horned into playing a shooter (they FORCED an extra weapon into my hands). In ME1 I played a power based medic/support character who blended tech and biotics. Liara did the biotic heavy lifting, and Ash/Wrex mopped up the mess. Also, nothing in ME2s short range shooting galleries ever compared to driving the mako up a peak and sniping the shit out of guards at extreme range who were patroling a merc base. Granted it was one of the scant few good things about UCWs, and said mercs were guarding the same pre-fab building both inside and out that Id seen 20 times already, but just because ME2s environments LOOKED different didnt mean they were any different inside to ME1.

I spent more time in ME2 moving from cover to cover and shooting enemies than anything else in game, even conversing with characters. In a game like Mass Effect I think thats just a crime, and one I hope to god ME3 atones for.

I dont like everything Ive seen (the turret section looked awful for anything other than conveying bigness and scope), but some of what Ive seen looks good. Im not totally convinced jsut yet, but it looks like ME3 will actually improve the shooter combat AND everything else, building up the entire game in terms of quality.

They said they would do that with ME2, but all they really improved significantly was the shooter combat. But seeing more and more of the stuff like in this thread goes each step further of convincing me this time its the truth.

The problem I have with ME1's combat is that there was so rarely room to spread out. It was obvious what piece of cover you needed to use when entering a room, then as you pushed forward, the next piece you needed to go to.

In ME2, the game was too cover-based (a major failing of the first Gears Of War... the second game featured more enemies that either didn't use cover or used movable cover), but how you approached a room was much more left to you. Over-all, a fairly solid mechanic, but the game doesn't know how to mix it up properly.

But the difficulty curve is really the thing that makes me prefer the second game. The first game doesn't have a difficulty curve, it has a difficulty cliff. Trying to tackle the missions without leveling up will lead to really frustrating moments early on where you don't really have the skills or weapons to deal with the mini-bosses and bosses. So you'll go off doing the copy-paste worlds until you're powerful enough, but there's really nothing in the game that's a match for you at full strength. The first time I played ME2, I played on Normal and it was dead simple... but as the game progressed, I was struggling more and more. It had pretty good pacing for a shooter.

I would love to see them take a look at the deeper shooters and try to bring those mechanics into play. The Crytech games are a decent example of stealth/recon (the Crysis games adding powers into the mix), while early Rainbow Six had you plan assaults. Imagine having a secondary team who was there to create diversions or create pincer move. There's a lot of cool places for an Action RPG to go, lots of cool tactics that Mass Effect never even touched upon.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

I never got the bitching about the stats in Me2.

Sure there were less numbers to fiddle with, but the number-reliance on ME1 just made it a bad shooter. It wasn't very 'RPG' to begin with.

At least ME2 was a better shooter - I'll happily sacrifice fiddling with stats in order to be able to shoot straight for half the game.

Agreed with this. However, I AM gald that they got rid of that "3 points for One skill" system. That was a bit arbitrary.

All of that being said, I am this close to all out Raging against the "unified" Karma meter. First of all, I was secretly (and naively) hoping they would actually listen to their fans and Get RID of the uncouth, oversimplifying karma meter, but instead they've actually made it WORSE?! How does that work?

The only reason I'm NOT raging is because the pictures are a little vague since the meter is empty. It could just be that it's two separate bars, connected end to end, which is fine, I guess. Not what I want, but beggars, choosers.etc.
I'll wait for an official announcement/video.

 

[Netrigan]

I never got the bitching about the stats in Me2.

Sure there were less numbers to fiddle with, but the number-reliance on ME1 just made it a bad shooter. It wasn't very 'RPG' to begin with.

At least ME2 was a better shooter - I'll happily sacrifice fiddling with stats in order to be able to shoot straight for half the game.

Agreed with this. However, I AM gald that they got rid of that "3 points for One skill" system. That was a bit arbitrary.

All of that being said, I am this close to all out Raging against the "unified" Karma meter. First of all, I was secretly (and naively) hoping they would actually listen to their fans and Get RID of the uncouth, oversimplifying karma meter, but instead they've actually made it WORSE?! How does that work?

The only reason I'm NOT raging is because the pictures are a little vague since the meter is empty. It could just be that it's two separate bars, connected end to end, which is fine, I guess. Not what I want, but beggars, choosers.etc.
I'll wait for an official announcement/video.

The whole Intimidate/Charm thing being attached to Paragon/Renegade I find a bit funny and even a bit out-of-place in the game.

Take the first mission in the Citadel where you have to storm the night-club. After the first fight, you face off against a couple of guys, who you can spare by reasoning with them or threatening them. Paragon & renegade points are up for grabs. What if I want to play as a Judge Dredd. Someone completely honorable, yet brutal. Follows the rules to the letter, but not adverse to doing what is necessary. Willing to show mercy, if he deems it appropriate. My karma would be all over the place and I'd be shut off from the higher level intimidation elements later on in the game.

Yeah, in some situations threatening someone *is* a renegade thing to do, but in the above case, threatening someone is akin to saving their life.

The more I play the game, the less I like the whole paragon/renegade thing and would prefer if they just let me choose charm or intimidation. Hell, in the second game, I can use my charm to con discounts out of Citadel merchants... with every store having me endorse them as my favorite. How is that Paragon?

Yes, give me the options to tailor my character, but any one-dimension good/evil system is going to be lacking. I would prefer if my actions had unintended consequences. Such as the game gives you various situations where you can spare or kill a surrendered foe. If I have a reputation for saving my foes, maybe villains try to take advantage of that trust... and that bites me in the ass a little later in the game (Alpha Protocol did this a bit). Or if I tend to execute these people, situations which might lead to an advantageous peaceful solution always have a violent, non-advantageous outcome for me. If I try to use my influence to get discounts at the shops in the Citadel, then maybe people start treating me like a sell-out.

You know, put a bit more thought in to it, instead of reducing the entire thing down to numbers.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Agreed with this. However, I AM gald that they got rid of that "3 points for One skill" system. That was a bit arbitrary.

All of that being said, I am this close to all out Raging against the "unified" Karma meter. First of all, I was secretly (and naively) hoping they would actually listen to their fans and Get RID of the uncouth, oversimplifying karma meter, but instead they've actually made it WORSE?! How does that work?

The only reason I'm NOT raging is because the pictures are a little vague since the meter is empty. It could just be that it's two separate bars, connected end to end, which is fine, I guess. Not what I want, but beggars, choosers.etc.
I'll wait for an official announcement/video.

The whole Intimidate/Charm thing being attached to Paragon/Renegade I find a bit funny and even a bit out-of-place in the game.

Take the first mission in the Citadel where you have to storm the night-club. After the first fight, you face off against a couple of guys, who you can spare by reasoning with them or threatening them. Paragon & renegade points are up for grabs. What if I want to play as a Judge Dredd. Someone completely honorable, yet brutal. Follows the rules to the letter, but not adverse to doing what is necessary. Willing to show mercy, if he deems it appropriate. My karma would be all over the place and I'd be shut off from the higher level intimidation elements later on in the game.

Yeah, in some situations threatening someone *is* a renegade thing to do, but in the above case, threatening someone is akin to saving their life.

The more I play the game, the less I like the whole paragon/renegade thing and would prefer if they just let me choose charm or intimidation. Hell, in the second game, I can use my charm to con discounts out of Citadel merchants... with every store having me endorse them as my favorite. How is that Paragon?

Yes, give me the options to tailor my character, but any one-dimension good/evil system is going to be lacking. I would prefer if my actions had unintended consequences. Such as the game gives you various situations where you can spare or kill a surrendered foe. If I have a reputation for saving my foes, maybe villains try to take advantage of that trust... and that bites me in the ass a little later in the game (Alpha Protocol did this a bit). Or if I tend to execute these people, situations which might lead to an advantageous peaceful solution always have a violent, non-advantageous outcome for me. If I try to use my influence to get discounts at the shops in the Citadel, then maybe people start treating me like a sell-out.

You know, put a bit more thought in to it, instead of reducing the entire thing down to numbers.

Wait, if I remember right, Mass Effect didn't tie the charm/intimidate system with the moraility did it? Didn't it have two separate skill lines for the two, that you could level up, independent of Shepard's morality? That's what I remember.

Best case scenario in my opinion is if they had made charm and intimidate two separate skills in the level up screen, and got rid of the Karma bars ENTIRELY. Dragon Age (Origins and 2) was SOOOOOOO much better for not having one, and it would've done wonders for Mass Effect as well, I think.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

They should do away with the RPG pretense and leave out the leveling entirely. Give you a pre-set loadout based on your dialog and exploration. Have a mission screen on the Normandy so you pick where to go. And have lots o cutscenes because the game developers really wish they were making a movie.

If its like ME2 none of the choices will be meaningful gameplay wise other than what color bullet you shoot people with.

There is no inventory management, there is no scarcity of resources or allocation decisions, the respecs are infinite so the leveling choices don't matter anyway. This is basically Halo except with mega-man level decision making where you get to pick missions from a hub until you get railroaded back into the main plot.

Alright. I hear ya. Now round up your mates and go make a better game. Go on, you've got so much figured out already!

Ah yes the Let's see YOU do better argument. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitlecl8xukzuauw1?from=Main.LetsSeeYOUDoBetter

So I'm not qualified to post my opinion because I'm not a multi billion dollar game publisher? My gosh we had better shut down these forums then, except for the accounts of EA and Activision executives.

Also I don't see a refutation of a single one of my points...

Sure. You're qualified to post your opinion. My point is that a lot of work, time and resources go into making game experiences such as Mass Effect, and that it's maybe not as easy as it looks, especially when you have an http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnpleasableFanbase .

Also, the reason I've not tried to refute your points is that you have quite clearly made up your mind, and no matter how much time I waste trying to convince you otherwise, your current view will likely remain.

Ooh trading Tvtropes links, what fun! Well rabid http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanBoy will praise the game no matter what it is so lets get that out of the way.

Your point is irrelevant because because I neither claimed I could do better and never claimed it wasn't a lot of work. Emptying a swimming pool with an eyedropper is also a lot of work. That doesn't mean the person who does so deserves to be spared from constructive advice like "Hey moron, use a bucket!"

And you got me, I made up my mind that meaningless choices are a bad thing. And I made up my mind that unless there are meaningful choices in terms of story and gameplay the game isn't an RPG, it is just another shooter with a pretty sci-fi coat of paint.

I never played ME1 so I can't compare. But ME2 was the video game equivalent of Avatar. Pretty, big budget, heavily marketed, slick, polished, tons of fanbois, and ultimately shallow forgettable fluff. It was probably the first Bioware game that I didn't care to play through a second time making different decisions because what would be the point?

Do I upgrade my shotgun or my rifle first? Well eventually I'll get all of them if I keep grinding planets so it doesn't really matter. Do I do Garrus' or Mordin's loyalty mission first? I'll do all of them anyway so who cares. Do I blow up the civilians and save the colony or save the civilians and destroy the colony (or skip that missing entirely)? I might as well flip a coin because it has no effect on the remains of the story. Do I upgrade my cold shot or my fire shot? I can instantly respec so it really doesn't matter. Do I take Jacob or Tali on the mission? Other than maybe a couple of lines of side dialog it doesn't change anything. What is the point of multiple powers when all of them share the same cooldown?

The conversation system in ME2 was brilliant, the dual meters were also an excellent innovation. I hope more games have multiple axis morality systems like Ultima 4. The paragon/renegade interrupts took some getting used to but made the cutscenes more interesting and that is a good thing. The story was throwaway sci-fi pulp. Didn't compare to Kotor in the slightest.

But the combat was insipid to the point that I looked for god mode mods so I didn't have to actually play it. With the exception of the biotic bubble fight every single combat was exactly the same. I could increase the challenge by playing a gimped class like vanguard but fundamentally there was no real difference other than how many reloads it took to win. The console infection of "1 button to do everything" meant I was just as likely to take cover in my enemy's crotch as I was to sprint away like I intended.

ME2 wasn't a bad game, it was an average game in a pretty box and I'm old enough to expect more if the Bioware name is on it.

Alright, I concede. You've made your point with well-crafted arguments, and I respect your opinion. I, however, wasn't bothered by any of the stuff you bring up as negative, and feel that a lot of context would be missed having never played ME1. ME2 is, at it's core, kind of the 'middle child' of the series and thus has no real beginning or end to the story, and I'll be the first to admit that it was very full of faffing about.
That, however, is just my opinion.

 

[Netrigan]

Agreed with this. However, I AM gald that they got rid of that "3 points for One skill" system. That was a bit arbitrary.

All of that being said, I am this close to all out Raging against the "unified" Karma meter. First of all, I was secretly (and naively) hoping they would actually listen to their fans and Get RID of the uncouth, oversimplifying karma meter, but instead they've actually made it WORSE?! How does that work?

The only reason I'm NOT raging is because the pictures are a little vague since the meter is empty. It could just be that it's two separate bars, connected end to end, which is fine, I guess. Not what I want, but beggars, choosers.etc.
I'll wait for an official announcement/video.

The whole Intimidate/Charm thing being attached to Paragon/Renegade I find a bit funny and even a bit out-of-place in the game.

Take the first mission in the Citadel where you have to storm the night-club. After the first fight, you face off against a couple of guys, who you can spare by reasoning with them or threatening them. Paragon & renegade points are up for grabs. What if I want to play as a Judge Dredd. Someone completely honorable, yet brutal. Follows the rules to the letter, but not adverse to doing what is necessary. Willing to show mercy, if he deems it appropriate. My karma would be all over the place and I'd be shut off from the higher level intimidation elements later on in the game.

Yeah, in some situations threatening someone *is* a renegade thing to do, but in the above case, threatening someone is akin to saving their life.

The more I play the game, the less I like the whole paragon/renegade thing and would prefer if they just let me choose charm or intimidation. Hell, in the second game, I can use my charm to con discounts out of Citadel merchants... with every store having me endorse them as my favorite. How is that Paragon?

Yes, give me the options to tailor my character, but any one-dimension good/evil system is going to be lacking. I would prefer if my actions had unintended consequences. Such as the game gives you various situations where you can spare or kill a surrendered foe. If I have a reputation for saving my foes, maybe villains try to take advantage of that trust... and that bites me in the ass a little later in the game (Alpha Protocol did this a bit). Or if I tend to execute these people, situations which might lead to an advantageous peaceful solution always have a violent, non-advantageous outcome for me. If I try to use my influence to get discounts at the shops in the Citadel, then maybe people start treating me like a sell-out.

You know, put a bit more thought in to it, instead of reducing the entire thing down to numbers.

Wait, if I remember right, Mass Effect didn't tie the charm/intimidate system with the moraility did it? Didn't it have two separate skill lines for the two, that you could level up, independent of Shepard's morality? That's what I remember.

Best case scenario in my opinion is if they had made charm and intimidate two separate skills in the level up screen, and got rid of the Karma bars ENTIRELY. Dragon Age (Origins and 2) was SOOOOOOO much better for not having one, and it would've done wonders for Mass Effect as well, I think.

Kind of, but if you wanted to max out Charm or Intimidate, you'd need to max out Paragon or Renegade. Playing as a Renegade, I could get Charm to about half power; while playing as a Paragon, I could get Intimidate to about half power. I had a bit more freedom, but not enough to play the game as Judge Dredd, who is probably the most intimidating pure lawful character ever created. He is the law.

That was kind of my model the first time through the game, although I didn't realize it at the time. I had just read a bunch of Judge Dredd and that no-nonsense attitude played right into the Renegade side. But I wasn't xenophobic and didn't trust Cerberus, so I kept getting Paragon points and fucking up my intimidation powers.

 

[Netrigan]

Cool. I found an article that encapsulates what makes good level design in a shooter.

http://fullbright.blogspot.com/2009/02/basics-of-effective-fps-encounter.html

Pretty long article, but this bit encapsulates some of what I'm talking about

The second aspect of setting up the encounter is blocking out the placement and initial behaviors of the enemy AI that the player will be facing. This determines how the player enters the fight, and ultimately how he walks away from it. In an FPS that features expressive combat mechanics and active enemies, the best place for the player to begin the fight is right in the middle of the action; how does one encourage him to dive in, instead of plinking at his foes from the sidelines?

One way is to give the player the first move-- let him get the drop on his enemies. This ties into the observability factor, while also encouraging the player to set up the fight to his advantage and close the distance before fighting starts.

In this scenario, the player approaches the encounter space and observes his opponents standing or patrolling around in the center or at the far end, unaware of his presence. These enemies should be spread out enough that a single grenade blast won't take them all out, and having backup waiting in the wings is important. The player may observe the enemies' movements undisturbed as long as he doesn't attack or advance too close. This presents the player with options-- does he hang back on the outer ring of cover and line up a headshot on one of the enemies? Does he plant some proximity mines around the flanking corridors then toss a grenade at the group to make them scatter? Does he close the distance and open up with automatic fire just as they notice his presence? The player is allowed to choose his tactics and consider his approach. This is invaluable from a player experiential standpoint.

The opposite experience is often encountered in F.E.A.R. 2: as the player steps through a doorway into the fight arena, enemies are already aware of his presence and spraying the entry point with suppressive fire. What options does the player have now? The only valid ones are to retreat and use the edge of the entry door as cover, or to dash blindly forward into a hail of bullets, which is most often suicide. An unaware enemy is key-- it allows the player to strike the match setting off the encounter, instead of being purely reactive to his opposition's opening moves. It allows the player to take up an optimal position for beginning the fight, which a good level designer makes sure is significantly deeper into the arena than the entry door. It allows the respawning player to intentionally alter his tactics upon retry, instead of being forced to deal with the exact same setup each time.

 

[lordlillen]

well i like what i see. branching ability paths, a cleaner interface (the blue does make sence since he's not with cerberus anymore) and hopefully team members will have there own Paragon/renegade bar looks nice. anyone else notice the wierd tube in garrus armor is he still hurt or is it yust for show?

 

[9thRequiem]

Why is the Paragon Renegade on a single slider now? That could cause problems.

I will fucking pop a blood vessel in my forehead if it turns out there are only two possible endings for Mass Effect 3, Paragon and Renegade. Seriously, that would be the worst cop-out ever after all this dramatic tension. Every time new information is shown on ME3, it really seems like that's the direction that they're going. Go fuck yourselves, EA.

The "Two possible endings" is pretty much a standard for games with this kind of meter, not limited to Bioware games, but including them, in the same was that ME1's "Let the council die because we have to" and "Let the council die because I don't care about them at all" were exactly the same.
Expecting a sudden change is a little over-optimistic.

The "each tmeamate has their own meter" - wasn't that done in KotOR 2?

WRT number of skills : Is it changed? Teammates still seem to have the same amount, and you could get that many with Shepard under certain classes, depends if any of those are the "learn a skill from a squadmate" type skills.

EDIT : I am a little disappointed that P/R is once again influenced by points invested during level up. Means you have to sacrifice combat ability for out-of-combat stuff ...

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

And you got me, I made up my mind that meaningless choices are a bad thing. And I made up my mind that unless there are meaningful choices in terms of story and gameplay the game isn't an RPG, it is just another shooter with a pretty sci-fi coat of paint.

[...]

Well eventually I'll get all of them if I keep grinding [...] I might as well flip a coin because it has no effect on the remains of the story.

You're talking at cross purposes, here. Being able to grind and time sink your way to complete overpowered-ness has been a staple of RPG's since...well, forever. Side quests in RPG's have always had fairly middling long-term or endgame consequences. As far as the long-term meaningfulness of major choices made in ME 1 and 2, those are to be seen in 3. You can't make a judgment call yet, because the game isn't out.

You're grousing about core RPG elements in a game about which you complain didn't have enough RP elements. Or should I say, the ones to your taste.

What is the point of multiple powers when all of them share the same cooldown?

[...]

I could increase the challenge by playing a gimped class like vanguard but fundamentally there was no real difference other than how many reloads it took to win. The console infection of "1 button to do everything" meant I was just as likely to take cover in my enemy's crotch as I was to sprint away like I intended.

Okay, I've played every class the game has to offer with the exception of engineer on every difficulty. Linked cooldowns creates a tactical choice in selecting which powers to use at a given time. That doesn't exactly come out on the lower or mid difficulties given that enemies are very easy to kill, but gets very important at higher difficulties when you have to match powers and weapon types to destroy layers of protection, prioritize targets, decide on when to control enemies and when to kill them, and take into account immunities and weaknesses.

And honestly, Vanguards are by no means gimped. They're easily the most-powerful class in the game -- when played correctly. Which, even on ME2 insanity that boils down to "don't be an idiot with charge".

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Why do they even bother at this point? Really it's more of a video game novel than an actual RPG.

Just give us a ton of pew pew and lots of dialog.

I know. This is even worthy of a thread.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

It's quite...blue. To be honest, I never had a problem with the last two menus. This looks fine.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

I'm just excited that Liara is a main playable character again

Not sure how I feel about Garrus fixing his suit. The blast damage was a nice touch.

Also: ohhh, paragon / renegade bars for your squad too?

And on topic.. hehe. I dig the Goldilocks approach. ME1 was way too much (too many powers to chose from) ME2 was way too few. This one looks just right.

 

[Joccaren]

Okay, I've played every class the game has to offer with the exception of engineer on every difficulty. Linked cooldowns creates a tactical choice in selecting which powers to use at a given time. That doesn't exactly come out on the lower or mid difficulties given that enemies are very easy to kill, but gets very important at higher difficulties when you have to match powers and weapon types to destroy layers of protection, prioritize targets, decide on when to control enemies and when to kill them, and take into account immunities and weaknesses.

And honestly, Vanguards are by no means gimped. They're easily the most-powerful class in the game -- when played correctly. Which, even on ME2 insanity that boils down to "don't be an idiot with charge".

Well, I tend to disagree here. If they had an entire bar cooldown of 1-3 seconds, but the ability you used took 4-8 seconds to cool down, maybe, but as the game is, even on insanity, I'd only ever swap ammo (Basically no cooldown there) Charge/Adrenaline Rush and use Tali's Shield Drain. Everything else was practically useless because it required that they have a certain armour type, or, in most cases, none at all.

On the lower difficulties, it was just a matter of what way you wanted to see your enemy die. On the higher difficulties, it was a matter of 'can't use, they have armour, can't use, thy have armour, can use, affects myself and (for charge) can use, gets me close enough to take a killing shot (except on some of the higher health enemies, but even then it regened your shield so, if you were going to die, charge, and you'd probably live)

Though I do agree, Vanguard is possibly the most powerful and most fun class to play if played right.

And on topic.. hehe. I dig the Goldilocks approach. ME1 was way too much (too many powers to chose from) ME2 was way too few. This one looks just right.

After some more careful examination, I realised I was right wrong originally, you have the same number of skills (and the same skills themselves) as you did in ME2 if you got the squadmate skills. The only apparent difference is in the skill upgrade window, where there appears to be 5 or so possible upgrades for the skill. Other than that, its the same ability screen.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Well, I tend to disagree here. If they had an entire bar cooldown of 1-3 seconds, but the ability you used took 4-8 seconds to cool down, maybe, but as the game is, even on insanity, I'd only ever swap ammo (Basically no cooldown there) Charge/Adrenaline Rush and use Tali's Shield Drain. Everything else was practically useless because it required that they have a certain armour type, or, in most cases, none at all.

On the lower difficulties, it was just a matter of what way you wanted to see your enemy die. On the higher difficulties, it was a matter of 'can't use, they have armour, can't use, thy have armour, can use, affects myself and (for charge) can use, gets me close enough to take a killing shot (except on some of the higher health enemies, but even then it regened your shield so, if you were going to die, charge, and you'd probably live)

Yeah, for soldiers, vanguards and infiltrators the choice was in matching weapon and ammo types to destroy defenses, and squadmate selection to fill in power gaps. Other than that, it was a matter of using the class ability when applicable and the other 1-2 actives as necessary (such as setting up shatters or warp bombs on enemies that can't be charged as a vanguard). Linked cooldowns as tactical choice really came into play with engineers, sentinels and adepts, especially sentinels.

Then again, I probably had the least overall fun on my sentinel playthrough considering by the end of the game I was steamrolling enemy defense with a heavy warp ammo mattock then warp bombing them straight to oblivion, and only carted out throw and overload against husks and to control enemies. If I do a sentinel again, I'm going the "assault" route (shotgun, assault armor, and geth shield boost/energy drain) considering I've heard that's massively more fun than the "controller" route.

 

[Elamdri]

I never got the bitching about the stats in Me2.

Sure there were less numbers to fiddle with, but the number-reliance on ME1 just made it a bad shooter. It wasn't very 'RPG' to begin with.

At least ME2 was a better shooter - I'll happily sacrifice fiddling with stats in order to be able to shoot straight for half the game.

It's a flaw with the RPG mindset that Less Talents = Bad. The problem with ME1 was that almost all the talents were passive boosts to silly thinks like accuracy and damage.

Why in the hell can't Commander Shepard, a decorated war hero, shoot straight without pumping 10 talent points in a skill? For EACH GUN?

The fact was that in ME2 the talents were MUCH better in terms of what they did. The improvements for each point were much more noticeable and they felt meaningful. I'm putting a point into a talent to increase my cooldown or my damage on an ability, rather than to make sure that I can hit what I am aiming at.

 

[ultrachicken]

So yeah, single karma metre, they've removed another unique feature. I was also sad to see they kept with ammo. I was hoping that they'd had some flash of sense and retconned back to the old system, coz it was unique and fit with their own lore. That change really did feel like a pandering to the console boys.

Why is uniqueness valued over quality? The ammo system works better because there's nothing quite as annoying as sitting through 10 seconds of not being able to use your gun. Ammo means you have to place your shots somewhat more carefully, and removes the overheating from the first game.

As for the karma meter, I am sad to see the original go. It made more sense to have a reputation for both good and bad rather than having actions cancel each other out.

And while I'm at it, the new cover system, does sheperd rolling and diving all over the place make him look like a 7 year old boy playing "fighting" to anyone else too?

The way you waddled around while crouching in ME1 made you look like a fool, I don't see anyone complaining about that. But, more on point, I don't think trying to maneuver between cover quickly and without getting shot means you're a kid playing war.

 

[Still Life]

Why do they even bother at this point? Really it's more of a video game novel than an actual RPG.

Just give us a ton of pew pew and lots of dialog.

I know. This is even worthy of a thread.

But is that really a problem?

Sure, Mass Effect isn't going to tickle everyone's fancy and the bigger the game/franchise, the more vocal become those who take issue with various design choices. Mass Effect is an RPG at the core, because it gives me Shepard and a focused story, which are both nuanced by the player. It also has a lot of action and shooter game-play, on top of all the narrative devices and character customization. It would be fitting to describe it as a hybrid game, and it has been from the very start.

The issue seems to be that everyone has their own definition of what an RPG should be and Mass Effect has defied a lot of the genre's conventions as it has evolved.

Also, I had no issued with the story in ME2. I thought overall it was great considering the size of the cast. Being a character-based story offers a serious challenge in keeping the characters compelling and the general consensus was that Bioware succeeded. I will say, though, that it suffers from 'middle trilogy' syndrome in a few ways. However, given that ME was designed to be a trilogy from the first instance tells me that all the important story elements will be wrapped up nice (as they should be) with the last chapter.

 

[ultrachicken]

They should do away with the RPG pretense and leave out the leveling entirely. Give you a pre-set loadout based on your dialog and exploration. Have a mission screen on the Normandy so you pick where to go. And have lots o cutscenes because the game developers really wish they were making a movie.

I don't think the level of interaction you have with characters in Mass Effect is replicable in a movie.

If its like ME2 none of the choices will be meaningful gameplay wise other than what color bullet you shoot people with.

So you didn't think that the decision of whether you want ammo that burns people to death, or ammo that freezes them is important? Whether to pump your points into fewer skills to become a master at them or to put some everywhere and become a jack of all trades? How about whether to have a concentrated, powerful blast of biotics that demolishes a single enemy, or a wide ranged blast that incapacitates large groups?

There is no inventory management, there is no scarcity of resources or allocation decisions, the respecs are infinite so the leveling choices don't matter anyway. This is basically Halo except with mega-man level decision making where you get to pick missions from a hub until you get railroaded back into the main plot.

It seems like you don't even know anything about ME3, instead you've pieced together bits of ME2 that you didn't like and then made some assumptions.

If you'd even played through ME2, you would have noticed that you can't fill up all of your skills with the points you receive. That means decisions regarding allocation of resources.

Inventory management is back in the form of weapon modding, and there are also more choices as to what weapons you get. Besides, the choices of weapons in ME1 were often not very interesting. You just picked the one with more green stat bars. There were also only around two different skins for each weapon type, just with different coloring. The same thing can be said for armor types.

Most RPGs that do not have open world gameplay akin to the Elder Scrolls, are about picking missions from a hub.

The footage shown is nothing like halo, which is a from the hip first person shooter that has a two weapon limit. ME3 is a third person, cover based shooter with up to a four weapon limit with a focus on aiming, using powers, and managing your squad.

 

[Joccaren]

Yeah, for soldiers, vanguards and infiltrators the choice was in matching weapon and ammo types to destroy defenses, and squadmate selection to fill in power gaps. Other than that, it was a matter of using the class ability when applicable and the other 1-2 actives as necessary (such as setting up shatters or warp bombs on enemies that can't be charged as a vanguard). Linked cooldowns as tactical choice really came into play with engineers, sentinels and adepts, especially sentinels.

Then again, I probably had the least overall fun on my sentinel playthrough considering by the end of the game I was steamrolling enemy defense with a heavy warp ammo mattock then warp bombing them straight to oblivion, and only carted out throw and overload against husks and to control enemies. If I do a sentinel again, I'm going the "assault" route (shotgun, assault armor, and geth shield boost/energy drain) considering I've heard that's massively more fun than the "controller" route.

Well, I've never played Adept or Engineer, those classes never really appealed to me, but I did try the sentinel one round.

I went the assault route, and it is more fun than the controller route I'm pretty sure, but its also a lot more one-skill dependent. In the early parts of the game, you usually just charge up your shield, then pop out of cover, lose shield, pop into cover, wait a minute or two, re-use shield, repeat. Mid to end game you actually have some ability to run up to enemies, lose your shield next to them, then shotgun them in the face, but its far more dangerous than even the Vanguard's charge; you don't gain shield by doing this, you lose it.

It does help a lot for that mission where almost endless husks come at you in that mine with the reaper artifact, you just charge up your shield, run into the husks, melee and shotgun them, run when your shield pops and they get stunned, keep running until your shield ability recharges, repeat. Takes a good 5-10 minutes to get rid of all of them, but it is easily done.

My personal favourite class is the vanguard, I'm hoping they haven't changed them too much in ME3. Can you imagine Charging into an enemy then Omni-blading them to the face? That will be awesome.