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

[Netrigan]

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.

Being more of a shooter fan that is intrigued by RPGs, I find this reaction so very funny.

One of the biggest tactical elements in any shooter is ammo conservation. You can't just shoot willy-nilly at an opponent and expect to survive. In playing ME2 on Insanity, I find myself really thinking about my shots. Switching ammo constantly, lining up shots, moving in closer for a better shot. I'm thinking about almost every bullet I'm firing, because it's real easy to shoot through your stock. At my most insulting, I say infinite ammo was a shooter mechanic that was dumbed down for the console players, just like regenerating health.

I think it comes down to RPG fans and shooter fans have a very different idea of what tactical is. I think both definitions are valid and I would love to see a RPG shooter that combined all these different elements into one game... but ME1 is a pretty simple corridor shooter which uses powers and inventory for tactics in the early going (once you get up to about Level 30, tactics are a thing of the past... pick your favorite method of killing and repeat). Whereas I look at something like the upcoming Far Cry 3, where you're using stealth to move around an enemy compound, getting as close as you can to your objective, and only then breaking cover as ten times more tactical than anything I've seen in Mass Effect 1 or 2.

I want a game that challenges my mind and my shooting skills.

Well the way I see having actual ammo (besides the whole cannon/lore thing: I like their science, it worked, it was different and it made sense, the new science or heat clips...not so much), especially seeing as the only ammo I was ever short on was sniper rounds (and even then not much or often) is if you suddenly find yourself in trouble, spray bullets, shoot loads, problem solved.

With heat, if you sprayed too much for normal dudes, and suddenly a wave comes in, you spray a bit more, couple of careful shots and ! Overheat! No shots with that gun for several, potentially painful, seconds. And also having noticible recoil as well at the same time (don't remember much of that in ME2, not as much anyway).

Can't believe I'm saying this, but (takes stiff drink) perhaps they should have used the Halo solution in having select weapons be of the infinite ammo variety. To make every weapon feature infinite ammo makes the difference between weapons fairly meaningless. Having some low-powered, infinite ammo weapons mean that you were always capable of defending yourself... while using more high-powered finite ammo guns as your bread-and-butter.

ME1's level design is pretty straight-forward corridor shooter, so there's not much advantage in having an infinite ammo sniper rifle. In ME2, this would completely unbalance the game since it allows you to take high ground and pick your targets. There's a reason why shooters tend to give you so little sniper ammo... it's a very unbalanced weapon type.

ME's shooter influences are pretty limited. Both games are pretty shallow for shooters. ME2 less so, because I think it demonstrates a knowledge of why certain elements work and don't work in a shooter. Especially as ME1 goes on, its broken shooter mechanics become more and more obvious as the game simply ceases to be any reasonable challenge. The final boss fight on hardcore is just tedious, not hard. Likewise, the fight with Saren that precedes it. This is not a game that understand the pacing of a shooter, whereas ME2 provides a much more consistent challenge... often thanks to ammo scarcity.

 

[Xaositect]

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.

 

[Amondren]

I'm ok with this. Looks like a combo of the 1st two games put together.

 

[DustyDrB]

The difference is, ME1 had a few bad missions like Feros and (despite the drama and story implications saving it in the end) Virmire, along with the first mission Eden Prime. However, it had story missions like the initial citadel visit, Noveria and Feros (although Feros leaned heavily towards combat). They felt like actual, living breathing places you visited. You arrived at these destinations and made steady progress.

I have to say that's the first time I ever heard anyone say Virmire was a bad mission. I always look forward to it.

I'll agree with some of your overall point, though. The "Mission Complete" screen was a poor decision. And I did miss the huge Citadel (I always like to point out how you can go from the Council auditorium to the Wards and then to the Normandy and only see one loading screen. It gave a great sense of continuity and scale). I also missed the big end-of-mission encounters like with the Thorian. Even though you didn't actually fight the Thorian, it had a presence in the battle that made the fight unique. Mass Effect 2 relied too often on throwing a Heavy Mech at us. And the levels themselves were designed to compliment the cover-based shooting. They even admitted this recently. It wouldn't take a drastic change to fix those issues, though.

I do hope we don't see a single Heavy Mech in Mass Effect 3. Not unless its being taken apart in a scrapyard.

 

[RuralGamer]

Having just started a new game in ME2 (and am trying to replay ME1 at the same time), I think this looks better than both actually.

 

[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.