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

[Canadish]

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.

Good fyou, you like sooters. But this series started as an rpg, not a shooter. Its like buying halo and then halfway through they turn it into an interactive movie like heavy rain.

Yes more stats are good, but I am not praising BW, they roved %80 of the mechanics putting %30 or so back in still leaves me with less than before. Inventory, companion armour,and some more skills please.

"I am pleased for you good sir, and understand that you enjoy the shooter genre. However, this dear franchise began it's life as a role playing game, and not as a shooter.
To demonstrate this in another context, it would be akin to the Halo franchise transforming midway through the adventure into an interactive movie experience. Something similar to Heavy Rain you might say.

Now, while I am indeed pleased to see the return of more selection in my character's growth, I still deny Bioware my praise. You see, they removed about...say...80% of the statistical selection from dear Mass Effect 1, and now only return 30% to us.
My knowledge of mathematics tells me this is actually less then before!

I would most enjoy seeing more inventory customisation, armour selection for my adventuring companions and of course, a few for skill selections for myself.

Have a spiffing day good sir."

 

[Nihilm]

It's looking pretty good, having more squares than ME2, does sound better than what ME2 did tbh.
What i am wondering about are those Paragon/Renegade bars everyone seems to have, maybe it will work like DA2's friend/rival meters or maybe it will just be your own paragon/renegade meter that you can always see, who knows

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

Looking good so far! If abilities DO "split" at some point like the last upgrade from ME2...I will be one happy panda.

 

[radioactive lemur]

I for one love it. Sure it's not all that different from ME2 but ME2 kicked major ass. I for one would be completely satisfied with ME3 if it was just ME2 for 30 more missions and a few new weapons, powers, characters and plot lines. If it's something radically different with more RPG options than one would expect from a night-elf's dwarf dragon mage than it in all likelihood will not be a satisfying conclusion to the series. Shooter with dialogue is just fine by me.

 

[Still Life]

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.

Good fyou, you like sooters. But this series started as an rpg, not a shooter. Its like buying halo and then halfway through they turn it into an interactive movie like heavy rain.

Yes more stats are good, but I am not praising BW, they roved %80 of the mechanics putting %30 or so back in still leaves me with less than before. Inventory, companion armour,and some more skills please.

"I am pleased for you good sir, and understand that you enjoy the shooter genre. However, this dear franchise began it's life as a role playing game, and not as a shooter.
To demonstrate this in another context, it would be akin to the Halo franchise transforming midway through the adventure into an interactive movie experience. Something similar to Heavy Rain you might say.

Now, while I am indeed pleased to see the return of more selection in my character's growth, I still deny Bioware my praise. You see, they removed about...say...80% of the statistical selection from dear Mass Effect 1, and now only return 30% to us.
My knowledge of mathematics tells me this is actually less then before!

I would most enjoy seeing more inventory customisation, armour selection for my adventuring companions and of course, a few for skill selections for myself.

Have a spiffing day good sir."

I'm very glad you were able to help one of our less articulate members in conveying their point.

As for my own humble opinion,

ME3 is shaping to be the best in the series. A culmination of the lessons learned throughout the first two games, on top of the 'all in' mentality Bioware are taking towards the final chapter of the trilogy.

We're going to have much smoother and visceral combat, combined with appropriately implemented RPG features, such as:

- Highly customizable weapons.
- More significant economy.
- Not a huge range of powers, but each individual power being highly customizable.
- More exploration.

This is a very exciting time to be a ME fan. Can't. Wait.

 

[Herbsk]

Oh, and Liara looks gorgeous in that character screen. Those more pink coloured lips look much nicer than the rather emo blue of LotSB.

I have to disagree with you there! I though the blue/black lipstick was damn sexy for a pixelated character!

 

[Nfritzappa]

So... Big news, they've not changed it. Woohoo?

Mass Effect 2 had 6 powers with 4 level up slots and only 2 bonuses when you got to the end of the skill.

Mass Effect 3 has 8 powers with 6 level up slots and 8 separate bonuses every time you level up.

You can't say they've not changed it, because thats just not true.

 

[shadowmagus]

This looks good. It's a shame some people are simply not going to be happy unless they bring back ME1. While I wouldn't mind more skills, there were simply to many in ME1 and the inventory system and constantly having to go through hundreds of pieces are armor was ridiculous. Bioware is working on finding a happy medium between ME1 and ME2 and I applaud them for that. Unfortunately, for some people, unless you need a manual and crib notes to play it's not an RPG.

 

[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!

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

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...

 

[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.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

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.

 

[Netrigan]

Glad to see Bioware could finally extend the colossal amount of effort required to actually set aside some time for non run-of-the-mill TPS combat and show some of the games other facets.

Looks promising so far. I also liked what I saw when it shows different planetary locations.

I guess theyll be keeping the crap missions/levels structure from ME2, but hopefully they can execute them A LOT better this time. They really sucked in ME2, one of the biggest game ruiners for me. Nothing worse than playing Mass Effect and being teleported to the start of a shooter mission, getting to the end and being teleported back out with only a few brief conversations breaking up the constant barrage of repetative action.

Out of curiosity, did you think the side mission structure of the first game was any better?

I think it makes a fairly decent backbone in the sense that I like open-world games with a fair amount of copy-paste missions the player can do to his heart's content... but the game was lacking a proper side mission structure that the second one offered up.

The main missions have always been fairly simple shooter levels at their core and about the only thing the second game did was offer up a whole lot more of them and make them a bit more linear (ME1's levels were about 80% linear, with a handful of interesting areas off the main path). The Citadel was a massive downgrade, as were the other non-combat hubs. The combat areas could have been a bit more complex, but over-all I enjoyed the ability to approach a battle from multiple spots, depending upon my chosen play style. The first game tended to have one doorway into any given battle.

For me, ME1 and ME2 both have elements that are a marked improvement over the other... but still a pretty long way to go to provide a truly tactical shooter experience. Your game doesn't have a stealth/recon element... you really don't have tactics IMO.

 

[Netrigan]

Wait? How does this look good? This looks the same as the shit in ME2, just rearrange slightly. Too much "FPS with powers", not enough RPG.

I was musing about this in another thread.

Should the game start you over from scratch every single time. Assuming you played the first game to completion, you should have all the shooting skills you will ever need in the game sewed up. There's no reason to put more stats into sniper rifles, you're not going to get any better at them unless they start giving you the ability to see and shoot through walls.

Imagine if they had truly carried over your Level 60 character from the first game into the second one... there would have been absolutely zero challenge on any difficulty level. Turn on invincibility, walk up to them with a shotgun, and shoot them in a head.

 

[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.

 

[Xaositect]

Out of curiosity, did you think the side mission structure of the first game was any better?

I think it makes a fairly decent backbone in the sense that I like open-world games with a fair amount of copy-paste missions the player can do to his heart's content... but the game was lacking a proper side mission structure that the second one offered up.

The main missions have always been fairly simple shooter levels at their core and about the only thing the second game did was offer up a whole lot more of them and make them a bit more linear (ME1's levels were about 80% linear, with a handful of interesting areas off the main path). The Citadel was a massive downgrade, as were the other non-combat hubs. The combat areas could have been a bit more complex, but over-all I enjoyed the ability to approach a battle from multiple spots, depending upon my chosen play style. The first game tended to have one doorway into any given battle.

For me, ME1 and ME2 both have elements that are a marked improvement over the other... but still a pretty long way to go to provide a truly tactical shooter experience. Your game doesn't have a stealth/recon element... you really don't have tactics IMO.

The side missions in ME1 from an environment standpoint were pathetic, everyone knew that. However, being teleported in and out of combat zones like ME2s mission layout wasnt any better.

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.

In ME2 the pacing is the exact same ALL the time. Generally thats the main area of discontent. That ME2s missions were all the same boring, repetative pace just didnt help. Thane and Samaras missions were the ONLY ones in the entire game to deviate from this "level" structure where you actually felt like it was a little bit more organic.

My guess is though that the ME2 styled "seperate levels" is cheaper than ME1s more KOTOR'esque planets that you visit, and that theyll stick to that. I think its one reason why ME2s "hubs" sucked. Ultimately they werent true "hubs", they were just small shopping mall sized locations to split up those other missions.

Another big point surrounding this was the crappy "loudout" screen at the start, and the even more crappy "mission complete screen" at the end.

I hope that clarifies why I thought ME2s mission setup was so poor.

 

[Netrigan]

Out of curiosity, did you think the side mission structure of the first game was any better?

I think it makes a fairly decent backbone in the sense that I like open-world games with a fair amount of copy-paste missions the player can do to his heart's content... but the game was lacking a proper side mission structure that the second one offered up.

The main missions have always been fairly simple shooter levels at their core and about the only thing the second game did was offer up a whole lot more of them and make them a bit more linear (ME1's levels were about 80% linear, with a handful of interesting areas off the main path). The Citadel was a massive downgrade, as were the other non-combat hubs. The combat areas could have been a bit more complex, but over-all I enjoyed the ability to approach a battle from multiple spots, depending upon my chosen play style. The first game tended to have one doorway into any given battle.

For me, ME1 and ME2 both have elements that are a marked improvement over the other... but still a pretty long way to go to provide a truly tactical shooter experience. Your game doesn't have a stealth/recon element... you really don't have tactics IMO.

The side missions in ME1 from an environment standpoint were pathetic, everyone knew that. However, being teleported in and out of combat zones like ME2s mission layout wasnt any better.

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.

In ME2 the pacing is the exact same ALL the time. Generally thats the main area of discontent. That ME2s missions were all the same boring, repetative pace just didnt help. Thane and Samaras missions were the ONLY ones in the entire game to deviate from this "level" structure where you actually felt like it was a little bit more organic.

My guess is though that the ME2 styled "seperate levels" is cheaper than ME1s more KOTOR'esque planets that you visit, and that theyll stick to that. I think its one reason why ME2s "hubs" sucked. Ultimately they werent true "hubs", they were just small shopping mall sized locations to split up those other missions.

Another big point surrounding this was the crappy "loudout" screen at the start, and the even more crappy "mission complete screen" at the end.

I hope that clarifies why I thought ME2s mission setup was so poor.

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.

 

[LetoTheTyrant]

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).