Also, I'm definitely a loser, so there's that. Spoilered for TMI details no one fucking cares about.
Who plays X-Coms (and has since the first one came out for DOS) and finds DOTA 2 and LOL, to be worse than boring? Losers. Losers like me.
Strategy (turn-based and real-time), 4X (Master of Orion FTW!!) & Tactics games are my bread and butter, along with 3rd person RPGs. FPS is way down on the list, though well above nearly all MMO's, most of which I find truly insipid (like, no thanks WOW, LoL, DOTA 2, etc., you all entertain for about an hour and then I'm done with your repetitive ultra-grind).
Homeworld Remaster? Yes please.
Doom reboot? Meh. It's cool, but Homeworld gets the pre-order; Doom can wait ... Crysis rules though (but I still bought it like 5 years after release).
DOTA 2? Deleted to make space on SSD for X-Com 2. Would delete again for Doom/Crysis/nearly any excuse or none at all.
I guess to me, some complaints about the game - mining in particular, but also the stuff about side quests - boil down to, "I played the game until my hands had blisters. Why did you program blisters into the game, Bioware??" So my reaction is, it seems like you can't really attribute those blisters to Bioware?
Well, the past 3 iterations of Mass Effect trained players not to avoid side quests or activities as those would be crucial to advancement later. The same with the last 3 iterations of Dragon Age.
So Bioware put in the same side quests (fetch this!) and activities (mine this!) but made them non-critical, and the players have no way of knowing that going into the game. All the players know is that from the previous six Bioware games, it would be critical.
But that's just not true at all! Particularly with ME1 (matriarch writings, medal collection) and Dragon Age: Inquisition (gather sheep meat, lead a Druffalo back to the farm, raise grandpa from the grave).
Bioware has been carefully training me not to care about everything over the past decade or so of games. And ME:A is the first game they've made that has trifling quests that nevertheless fit in exactly with who your character is and make sense for you to do, and that I actually want to do so that I can see just what's in that corner of the map (and the quest marker helps me get there!)
I think that side quests are essential in ME2, ME3 (except for overheard fetch quests that you involuntarily acquire on the Citadel), DA:O, and DA2. The only modern-era BW titles with totally inessential filler quests are ME1 and DA:I. It's worth noting, though, that even the Matriarch Writings from ME1 eventually had a fun payoff in ME3. So except maybe for DA:I, past BW games have established a not unreasonable FOMO if you don't do all the filler quests.
I think ME2 and DA2 are both outliers, especially in that pretty much the entire game community raised their fists in uproar that those systems were too pared down (naturally, ME2 was also my favorite system). ME3 immediately took a giant step away from the pared-down design and even then some people said it didn't go far enough.
My memory of ME2 is that had a fair amount of hub side quests (stuff like the Quarian/Volus argument in the Citadel and helping Gianni Parasini in Nos Astra) and then the N7 assignments you picked up from scanning planets. My memory of ME3 is that it also had side quests on the Citadel, but the closest thing to the N7 assignments were the bullshit "Shepard hears someone complaining across the room and decides to go help them" missions that were all the worst sort of pure fetch quests.
So I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "pared down". To me, it seems like questing in ME3 was pared down from ME2. ME2 and ME3 both had a fair number of hub area quests, but ME3 ditched the sort of substantial side quests that you picked up during exploration that ME2 had. I think Hudson or one of the other public faces of ME3 even admitted that the auto-enroll fetch quests in ME3 were kind of crappy because they ran out of time.
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I guess to me, some complaints about the game - mining in particular, but also the stuff about side quests - boil down to, "I played the game until my hands had blisters. Why did you program blisters into the game, Bioware??" So my reaction is, it seems like you can't really attribute those blisters to Bioware?
Well, the past 3 iterations of Mass Effect trained players not to avoid side quests or activities as those would be crucial to advancement later. The same with the last 3 iterations of Dragon Age.
So Bioware put in the same side quests (fetch this!) and activities (mine this!) but made them non-critical, and the players have no way of knowing that going into the game. All the players know is that from the previous six Bioware games, it would be critical.
But that's just not true at all! Particularly with ME1 (matriarch writings, medal collection) and Dragon Age: Inquisition (gather sheep meat, lead a Druffalo back to the farm, raise grandpa from the grave).
Bioware has been carefully training me not to care about everything over the past decade or so of games. And ME:A is the first game they've made that has trifling quests that nevertheless fit in exactly with who your character is and make sense for you to do, and that I actually want to do so that I can see just what's in that corner of the map (and the quest marker helps me get there!)
I think that side quests are essential in ME2, ME3 (except for overheard fetch quests that you involuntarily acquire on the Citadel), DA:O, and DA2. The only modern-era BW titles with totally inessential filler quests are ME1 and DA:I. It's worth noting, though, that even the Matriarch Writings from ME1 eventually had a fun payoff in ME3. So except maybe for DA:I, past BW games have established a not unreasonable FOMO if you don't do all the filler quests.
I think ME2 and DA2 are both outliers, especially in that pretty much the entire game community raised their fists in uproar that those systems were too pared down (naturally, ME2 was also my favorite system). ME3 immediately took a giant step away from the pared-down design and even then some people said it didn't go far enough.
My memory of ME2 is that had a fair amount of hub side quests (stuff like the Quarian/Volus argument in the Citadel and helping Gianni Parasini in Nos Astra) and then the N7 assignments you picked up from scanning planets. My memory of ME3 is that it also had side quests on the Citadel, but the closest thing to the N7 assignments were the bullshit "Shepard hears someone complaining across the room and decides to go help them" missions that were all the worst sort of pure fetch quests.
So I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "pared down". To me, it seems like questing in ME3 was pared down from ME2. ME2 and ME3 both had a fair number of hub area quests, but ME3 ditched the sort of substantial side quests that you picked up during exploration that ME2 had. I think Hudson or one of the other public faces of ME3 even admitted that the auto-enroll fetch quests in ME3 were kind of crappy because they ran out of time.
ME2 is pared down in multiple ways. For one, the planets were no longer skyboxes for you to explore, they were instead a small section of the planet you were visiting. A detailed staging area instead of a wide expanse with one or two points of interest. "On rails!" people said. "The world feels smaller!" people said (The world actually felt larger to me, because ME2 had detailed unique locations for each missions, while every location in ME1 was the same prefab building, over and over again, so I never, ever understood this complaint). Side missions within that world were often, "I'm on this mission to recruit Jack, but let me pick up this journal that some guy at the bar said he wanted while I'm here." At least that's how I remember those side missions. Very little to commit to, but on the other hand not a lot of actual content there, either.
The recruitment and loyalty missions weren't like that, but the ME:A recruitment and loyalty (and dates, and friendly chats) aren't like that, either, so that's not what we're comparing.
I find many of the "choices" not to have much weight. Between choosing
the grunts and the salarian pathfinder
persuading or dissuading the turian pathfinder
choosing reyes or sloane
the choices during vetra's loyalty quest (can sid even die?)
and so on
there didn't seem to be much a difference, particularly during the final fight. Maybe you get some cameos but it didn't really feel like it changed much of the game. I guess there's a few that might matter, like
saving the mosha or not (is this even a choice that can be had?
but they are so far and few between. I was also a vanguard and I am glad I did that at least. I can't imagine the game's shooting mechanics without charge and melee, at which point it's not even a shooting game anymore.
Most of the choices in ME1 didn't have much weight, and even less if you don't count the following games.
Kill the brainwashed colonists and/or Green Asari? You might get one mini quest in the next game, and some extra numbers in ME3.
Save or kill the Rachni queen? One bonus conversation in ME2, and virtually the same quest in ME3, with slightly different numerical outcomes.
Even your choice of counsellor was pretty inconsequential, as you end up dealing with Anderson no matter what.
The only real repercussions were Virmire and save/kill the Counsel.
It's like Telltale games, they don't affect the destination, just certain bits of the journey.
I'd expect some of these choices to have greater consequences down the line, particularly who you back on Kadara.
Having seasons pathfinders doesn't seem to make much difference yet, but you never know.
I agree, the whole game is one giant setup, so of course it feels unsatisfying in many regards. But even media that is meant as setups for sequels (Lord of the Rings, for example) should feel satisfying in their own right. Plus, I agree it's not like a Telltale game and it shouldn't be. But the choices should at least give me the illusion that they matter. I should perceive choice, even when it doesn't exist.
There's multiple things going on that affect the perception of choice that MA:A just lacks. I blame it somewhat on all the text-based results we're presented (emails, logs). My choice doesn't need to alter the course of all things, but it needs to feel like it matters. For instance, once I found out that colonizing worlds
is redundant
, all of my planet viability accomplishments got thrown out the window. Or when I chose
scientists
to colonize EOS I expected some kind of consequences. Nope! Again, my choice was basically dismissed. What about my choice between
Reyes and Sloane
? Nope, nothing there!
But it's not only about perception, but of impact as well. There's not a single difficult choice from MA:A that I'm going to remember down the line. The one choice that gave me the most pause was between the
grunt over salarian
. Why? Because Drak was with me and a fellow pal and I also was friends with Kelo. I made promises to both these two and now I had to choose. Yet by that point, I had no faith in the storytelling for it to matter, and the storytelling proved me right.
Drak still loved me even though he was on the mission and he saw me sack his buddies
and I heard jack shit about the choice for the rest of the game. Yet choosing between Ashley or Kaiden or choosing during the Suicide missions is going to stick with me, even if it didn't affect the final result. In these cases, it mattered because I was sacking something I developed a relationship with, not some nameless shitheads in a tincan. But the game continually tries to give us important choices, but it misses the entire point: the choice is important because the relationship between the player, not because of some esoteric moral conundrum. I can see promise between
mosha and the other nameless, faceless angaran since she becomes a choice at the end
, but why should I care about the mosha? I just met these people, have no relationships between any of them, and I'm just to pretend this one person is very important and it's an important decision because these other people told me it is an important decision. Oh yeah? Show me it's important and stop telling me.
Does the Nexus even change graphically in MA:A while you get more AVP? If it does, it's so slight I can't tell. Again, another loss that if implemented, would add to the illusion of choice. Imagine the Nexus slowly coming together, like the armada in MA3. You know that first fetch quest at the beginning of the game about
the first murder in Andromeda
? Well, I safely ignored that even though it was setup to be this important thing, yet I ignored it the entire game and the dude sat in the cell the entire game. Such an important thing, I'm glad everyone told me it was important.
I am probably unfairly comparing MA:A to Mass Effect 2, but I don't really think it's unfair considering they've had multiple games in between to hone their craft.
That said, I did enjoy the banter between Drak and PB, even Drak and Vetra was nice to have on missions. Laim ended up being my Kaiden, so if I thought the game was going to give me a suicide mission, I surely would have had him aboard. ;-)
You used it many times so I have to ask, MA:A? Not ME:A?
Also, I'm not done the game just yet but the single word I've come to associate with this game is "Tedium". I think I'm close to the end so I'll keep at it it but so much of it feels so tedious.
My current progress:
Colonized Eos/Kadara/Voeld/Elaaden/whatever the last one was. Just picked up the Kett transponder from Kadara and gave it to Gil.
Worst example of "Tedium" I can remember:
The setup of Kadara Port and the "slums". Going back and forth from the world to Sloane's office and so many slow-doors and the elevator. Ugh. This was clearly rushed in production. Kadara port has 2 fast travel stations and they are 15 seconds apart. Why?
The choice between Reyes and Sloane has weight in that now this person instead of that person is part of your world. Not everything has to have gigantic mechanical gameplay repercussions to be interesting or "meaningful" in an RPG. Same with Krogans/Salarians; it may not affect the game mechanics too much, but it certainly affects your game world.
+1
Sirialisof the Halite Throne.Registered Userregular
I guess to me, some complaints about the game - mining in particular, but also the stuff about side quests - boil down to, "I played the game until my hands had blisters. Why did you program blisters into the game, Bioware??" So my reaction is, it seems like you can't really attribute those blisters to Bioware?
Well, the past 3 iterations of Mass Effect trained players not to avoid side quests or activities as those would be crucial to advancement later. The same with the last 3 iterations of Dragon Age.
So Bioware put in the same side quests (fetch this!) and activities (mine this!) but made them non-critical, and the players have no way of knowing that going into the game. All the players know is that from the previous six Bioware games, it would be critical.
But that's just not true at all! Particularly with ME1 (matriarch writings, medal collection) and Dragon Age: Inquisition (gather sheep meat, lead a Druffalo back to the farm, raise grandpa from the grave).
Bioware has been carefully training me not to care about everything over the past decade or so of games. And ME:A is the first game they've made that has trifling quests that nevertheless fit in exactly with who your character is and make sense for you to do, and that I actually want to do so that I can see just what's in that corner of the map (and the quest marker helps me get there!)
I think that side quests are essential in ME2, ME3 (except for overheard fetch quests that you involuntarily acquire on the Citadel), DA:O, and DA2. The only modern-era BW titles with totally inessential filler quests are ME1 and DA:I. It's worth noting, though, that even the Matriarch Writings from ME1 eventually had a fun payoff in ME3. So except maybe for DA:I, past BW games have established a not unreasonable FOMO if you don't do all the filler quests.
I think ME2 and DA2 are both outliers, especially in that pretty much the entire game community raised their fists in uproar that those systems were too pared down (naturally, ME2 was also my favorite system). ME3 immediately took a giant step away from the pared-down design and even then some people said it didn't go far enough.
My memory of ME2 is that had a fair amount of hub side quests (stuff like the Quarian/Volus argument in the Citadel and helping Gianni Parasini in Nos Astra) and then the N7 assignments you picked up from scanning planets. My memory of ME3 is that it also had side quests on the Citadel, but the closest thing to the N7 assignments were the bullshit "Shepard hears someone complaining across the room and decides to go help them" missions that were all the worst sort of pure fetch quests.
So I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "pared down". To me, it seems like questing in ME3 was pared down from ME2. ME2 and ME3 both had a fair number of hub area quests, but ME3 ditched the sort of substantial side quests that you picked up during exploration that ME2 had. I think Hudson or one of the other public faces of ME3 even admitted that the auto-enroll fetch quests in ME3 were kind of crappy because they ran out of time.
ME2 is pared down in multiple ways. For one, the planets were no longer skyboxes for you to explore, they were instead a small section of the planet you were visiting. A detailed staging area instead of a wide expanse with one or two points of interest. "On rails!" people said. "The world feels smaller!" people said (The world actually felt larger to me, because ME2 had detailed unique locations for each missions, while every location in ME1 was the same prefab building, over and over again, so I never, ever understood this complaint). Side missions within that world were often, "I'm on this mission to recruit Jack, but let me pick up this journal that some guy at the bar said he wanted while I'm here." At least that's how I remember those side missions. Very little to commit to, but on the other hand not a lot of actual content there, either.
The recruitment and loyalty missions weren't like that, but the ME:A recruitment and loyalty (and dates, and friendly chats) aren't like that, either, so that's not what we're comparing.
I actually think ME2 had the best side missions in the series and probably in Bioware games as a whole. Each one was focused on a unique area with assets and often mechanics set up specifically for that mission - think traversing the crashed ship on the edge of a mountain or the lengthy trek to find out what was up with those malfunctioning robots that took you from an abandoned space station to a derelict ship to a crash site to a robot factory, each with unique dialogue and locations.
There were fewer of them, and they didn't always have anything to do with the plot. But they were meaty in terms of content, memorable to play, and built on the tense working relationship between Shepard and the Alliance and other factions in the galaxy while also showing that he/she was still interested in doing more carrying out the Illusive Man's mission.
+6
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
BTW, Hesh is a pretty good substitute for the Piranha at much lower rarity. Not fully auto yet very high RoF. Slightly more burst DPS than Piranha, slightly less clip DPS. Also has the plasma seeker system so it MAY be slightly more accurate than Piranha (idk if it is noticeable in-game because I don't have a Piranha).
I like it for shotgun builds a lot, though it is currently a bit heavy.
How is it that in both ME3 and MEA, the smart choke does not work at all?? You'd think they'd get it right this time around.
Also, I'm definitely a loser, so there's that. Who plays X-Coms (and has since the first one came out for DOS) and finds DOTA 2 and LOL, to be worse than boring? Losers. Losers like me.
Strategy (turn-based and real-time), 4X (Master of Orion FTW!!) & Tactics games are my bread and butter, along with 3rd person RPGs. FPS is way down on the list, though well above nearly all MMO's, most of which I find truly insipid (like, no thanks WOW, LoL, DOTA 2, etc., you all entertain for about an hour and then I'm done with your repetitive ultra-grind).
Homeworld Remaster? Yes please.
Doom reboot? Meh. It's cool, but Homeworld gets the pre-order; Doom can wait ... Crysis rules though.
DOTA 2? Deleted to make space on SSD for X-Com 2. Would delete again for Doom.
Eh, wouldn't make you a loser, just means you have different tastes. Some people cling to a single franchise because they hold that much meaning to them and never engage other stuff... so it goes. :P
Tactical games are okay, as are wargames, haven't done either in a while. Kind of lost interest in them. Definitely like 3rd person RPGs.
I wouldn't really categorize games like LoL or DOTA as MMOs though, as they're arena types with a different flow. I guess the loot acquisition and grind is there in them. But they don't really do it for me either. I think Gigantic is interesting, but it's a hybrid of the concept.
--
As for your question about smart chokes, I believe the decals from firing them don't change when firing them at walls, which is the common way people check their accuracy. But the shell spread will adjust if you shoot at a target, such that your crosshair/reticle turns red from it being actively targeted.
If you want to test that, shoot at an enemy from a certain distance both with and without the mod, and see how much damage it does?
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
+1
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
Thanks! Yeah, I tend to lump MMORPGs and MMOBAs together as game types I enjoy and care about the very absolute least. I know many think of MMO as mainly or only applying to MMORPGs, but MMOBA is MMO too. My jargon is a bit loose, but I'm married and gamer jargon is not exactly a thing in my life. *I'm old and cranky*
Obviously, being obsessed with ME3 and ME:A MP cuts against the grain a little, but what can I say - they are ridiculously fun despite the limited variety and tad-o-grind. Mass Effect is pretty special in a lot of ways tho. I will try your proposed smart-choke test, but getting really close is OK too.
Also, I'm definitely a loser, so there's that. Who plays X-Coms (and has since the first one came out for DOS) and finds DOTA 2 and LOL, to be worse than boring? Losers. Losers like me.
Strategy (turn-based and real-time), 4X (Master of Orion FTW!!) & Tactics games are my bread and butter, along with 3rd person RPGs. FPS is way down on the list, though well above nearly all MMO's, most of which I find truly insipid (like, no thanks WOW, LoL, DOTA 2, etc., you all entertain for about an hour and then I'm done with your repetitive ultra-grind).
Homeworld Remaster? Yes please.
Doom reboot? Meh. It's cool, but Homeworld gets the pre-order; Doom can wait ... Crysis rules though.
DOTA 2? Deleted to make space on SSD for X-Com 2. Would delete again for Doom.
Eh, wouldn't make you a loser, just means you have different tastes. Some people cling to a single franchise because they hold that much meaning to them and never engage other stuff... so it goes. :P
Tactical games are okay, as are wargames, haven't done either in a while. Kind of lost interest in them. Definitely like 3rd person RPGs.
I wouldn't really categorize games like LoL or DOTA as MMOs though, as they're arena types with a different flow. I guess the loot acquisition and grind is there in them. But they don't really do it for me either. I think Gigantic is interesting, but it's a hybrid of the concept.
--
As for your question about smart chokes, I believe the decals from firing them don't change when firing them at walls, which is the common way people check their accuracy. But the shell spread will adjust if you shoot at a target, such that your crosshair/reticle turns red from it being actively targeted.
If you want to test that, shoot at an enemy from a certain distance both with and without the mod, and see how much damage it does?
Only possible with the scattershot as all other shotguns have random weapon spread or single shots.
But yes it should be possible to determine with the scattershot. But I really doubt it's going to work. There is no indication that the pellet decals aren't where damage is done.
0
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
Some aim enhancements (specifically Turbocharge enhancements) give me an auto-aim/tracking thingie. Either that or I have gone full Octopus and my arm has become prehensile.
I'm on PC, so I didn't think there was any auto-aim. Very odd. Anyone else notice auto aim on PC with Turbocharge, or am I an Octopus??
No shit?? People kept going on and on about how it did not work!! Every shotgun build I ever looked at had people claiming to avoid.
What bout ME:A? Does it work for you?
Not tried it in A as I run barrel/melee on my AAdept, currently, but I can confidently agree that in 3 it 100% worked great. It MAY have only really applied to ADS mode, however, but I can't recall. Made the Piranha very scary.
No shit?? People kept going on and on about how it did not work!! Every shotgun build I ever looked at had people claiming to avoid.
What bout ME:A? Does it work for you?
Especially useful on the claymore in ME3.
Have 8 hours in MEA multi. Can't say anything.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
+2
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
Well, now I'm really wishing I had known that it worked. That would have come in handy so many times, so, so many fucking times.
I gotta say, I really like the classes more overall in ME:A. There were a large number of classes that I just didn't enjoy playing in ME3, but they're all pretty fun in MEA (that I've tried).
Combo nerfing is not smile-inducing, but I can use much, much, much better weapons on casters and that nearly makes up for it. The sad part is that if they did buff combos and powers they'll have to buff enemies as well or take away some of the gun selection from casters, because casters seem fine on Gold without good combos.
Some aim enhancements (specifically Turbocharge enhancements) give me an auto-aim/tracking thingie. Either that or I have gone full Octopus and my arm has become prehensile.
I'm on PC, so I didn't think there was any auto-aim. Very odd. Anyone else notice auto aim on PC with Turbocharge, or am I an Octopus??
PC has aim assist on by default. But I think it only snaps when you're not zoomed. But I haven't tested it.
+1
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
Wha? I never noticed until last night?! I'm so terrible.
Hell, I can't figure out how to talk to the other players. In fact, how the shit do you get that working, or is it working and everyone just instantly mutes me as soon as I say hi??
Wha? I never noticed until last night?! I'm so terrible.
IDK... it's kind of hard to notice aim assist on a mouse, unless it's really, really heavy. That level of sensitivity/control just isn't really noticeable vs your hand motions.
I play with it off in most games because it mucks with my prioritization of targets. Nothing more annoying than your aim being thrown by a closer target in your scope's periphery.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Wha? I never noticed until last night?! I'm so terrible.
Hell, I can't figure out how to talk to the other players. In fact, how the shit do you get that working, or is it working and everyone just instantly mutes me as soon as I say hi??
Default is Push to Talk and the default binding is B iirc.
+1
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
What!! B? keybinding listed in-game was RAlt and my default was not Push-to-Talk, but always on. I switched to Push-to-Talk and used RAlt for utter failing nothingness.
Wha? I never noticed until last night?! I'm so terrible.
IDK... it's kind of hard to notice aim assist on a mouse, unless it's really, really heavy. That level of sensitivity/control just isn't really noticeable vs your hand motions.
I play with it off in most games because it mucks with my prioritization of targets. Nothing more annoying than your aim being thrown by a closer target in your scope's periphery.
Maybe that's it. I tend to play with super-high sensitivity because I have no space for the mouse. I have a feeling that has fucked me over a few times and I'm going to turn it off.
Wait nm ralt was default. If you're not being heard then your mic might be muted?
+1
TerribleMisathrope23rd Degree IntiateAt The Right Hand Of The Seven HornsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
I really couldn't say what's going on. I got a new headphone with Mic as my children (actually, just the 3 yr-old) destroyed my last, plugged it in. No response in any game. Check keybinding, and switch to Push-To-Talk and nothing. No one ever says anything. I asked in over 10 games if the thing was working and not once did anyone ever reply. I'm not sure where to check if I've muted myself or not on accident.
Could be shit wasn't working, could just be no one wants to talk (which is weird IMO).
Edit: Then again, maybe experienced MP cats will say that's because in-game conversation is a dumpster fire, idk.
I think ME2 and DA2 are both outliers, especially in that pretty much the entire game community raised their fists in uproar that those systems were too pared down (naturally, ME2 was also my favorite system).
This seems like pretty extreme hyperbole? ME2 was universally adored, and while there were a couple people who groused regularly about the Citadel being smaller or skyboxes, the game was acclaimed and marveled at as an effective way to 180 on many of the predecessor's flaws. Unlike DA2 (outside of these forums, anyway), ME2 has never been in want of defenders. That's not to say nothing was lost in the transition, but the entire game community experienced nothing resembling uproar over ME2.
I agree that people overlooked a lot of dull shit in ME1 like the prefabs or how an entire story planet consisted entirely of recruiting Liara, which just goes to show that an incredibly good climax can make up for a lot.
I think ME2 and DA2 are both outliers, especially in that pretty much the entire game community raised their fists in uproar that those systems were too pared down (naturally, ME2 was also my favorite system).
This seems like pretty extreme hyperbole? ME2 was universally adored, and while there were a couple people who groused regularly about the Citadel being smaller or skyboxes, the game was acclaimed and marveled at as an effective way to 180 on many of the predecessor's flaws. Unlike DA2 (outside of these forums, anyway), ME2 has never been in want of defenders. That's not to say nothing was lost in the transition, but the entire game community experienced nothing resembling uproar over ME2.
I agree that people overlooked a lot of dull shit in ME1 like the prefabs or how an entire story planet consisted entirely of recruiting Liara, which just goes to show that an incredibly good climax can make up for a lot.
ME2 was definitely not universally adored. Oh, oh, so much hatred for the weapons/gear system. So much. (Note: I thought it was fine. Widow uber alles.)
Every game in the series has had people complaining that it did too much (thing) while removing (other thing) when as EVERYONE KNOWS (thing) is the most important part of the series. Just fill in values as appropriate.
Is just how it goes. Some will hate (thing), some want more (thing), nobody agrees on how much (thing) at any point.
The one thing I remember people hating in ME2 is the fact that the inventory changed from "grab everything that isn't nailed down" to "portioned out upgrades every so often".
The one thing I remember people hating in ME2 is the fact that the inventory changed from "grab everything that isn't nailed down" to "portioned out upgrades every so often".
Some people get really fucking mad when you take away their junk loot. Probably because junk loot is part of the video addiction game formula.
The ability to miss important upgrades in ME2 sucked. But the fact that you only had upgrades every once and a while and you just had to choose what weapons was goddamn the super best.
Going back to the ME1 style "everything nailed down" isn't really ideal. The only thing that I want to find in ME:A are:
Resources (which I can then sell for cash money to buy augmentations)
Research Points
Mods
Everything else is clutter and even the mods are clutter and I would really love to have those be things that i can upgrade and apply to any weapon and not have to goddamn worry about what is in my inventory.
For anybody that is interested in smaller things.
Trivially minor Aya spoilers, but still.
After the initiative builds an embassy on Aya, there is actually a model ship on the right wall, near a... I want to say a sink.
I think I'm missing only 3 more at this point!
I have at least... 3? Empty spots in the case AND I WANT THEM FILLED. God dammit.
+2
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
you could miss upgrades in ME2 but I think they were still available at kiosks after the fact like in ME3.
What I liked about it in ME2 was that it made actually looking for things not be a chore like in recent Bioware games because it was a limited thing. You would either find story elaborating datapads or credits or something genuinely worthwhile like an upgrade.
The one thing I remember people hating in ME2 is the fact that the inventory changed from "grab everything that isn't nailed down" to "portioned out upgrades every so often".
Some people get really fucking mad when you take away their junk loot. Probably because junk loot is part of the video addiction game formula.
Literally added with no purpose beyond being able to be sold for money, in which case why not give you money instead?
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Also, I'm definitely a loser, so there's that. Spoilered for TMI details no one fucking cares about.
Who plays X-Coms (and has since the first one came out for DOS) and finds DOTA 2 and LOL, to be worse than boring? Losers. Losers like me.
Strategy (turn-based and real-time), 4X (Master of Orion FTW!!) & Tactics games are my bread and butter, along with 3rd person RPGs. FPS is way down on the list, though well above nearly all MMO's, most of which I find truly insipid (like, no thanks WOW, LoL, DOTA 2, etc., you all entertain for about an hour and then I'm done with your repetitive ultra-grind).
Homeworld Remaster? Yes please.
Doom reboot? Meh. It's cool, but Homeworld gets the pre-order; Doom can wait ... Crysis rules though (but I still bought it like 5 years after release).
DOTA 2? Deleted to make space on SSD for X-Com 2. Would delete again for Doom/Crysis/nearly any excuse or none at all.
Alternative answer: Once Destiny gets a PC release PC gamers will perhaps give the tiniest of fucks about Destiny :P
Posts
try this
Yea the reason it's so good with annihilation field is that AF is an active biotic effect that goes on all enemies.
Strategy (turn-based and real-time), 4X (Master of Orion FTW!!) & Tactics games are my bread and butter, along with 3rd person RPGs. FPS is way down on the list, though well above nearly all MMO's, most of which I find truly insipid (like, no thanks WOW, LoL, DOTA 2, etc., you all entertain for about an hour and then I'm done with your repetitive ultra-grind).
Homeworld Remaster? Yes please.
Doom reboot? Meh. It's cool, but Homeworld gets the pre-order; Doom can wait ... Crysis rules though (but I still bought it like 5 years after release).
DOTA 2? Deleted to make space on SSD for X-Com 2. Would delete again for Doom/Crysis/nearly any excuse or none at all.
try this
My memory of ME2 is that had a fair amount of hub side quests (stuff like the Quarian/Volus argument in the Citadel and helping Gianni Parasini in Nos Astra) and then the N7 assignments you picked up from scanning planets. My memory of ME3 is that it also had side quests on the Citadel, but the closest thing to the N7 assignments were the bullshit "Shepard hears someone complaining across the room and decides to go help them" missions that were all the worst sort of pure fetch quests.
So I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "pared down". To me, it seems like questing in ME3 was pared down from ME2. ME2 and ME3 both had a fair number of hub area quests, but ME3 ditched the sort of substantial side quests that you picked up during exploration that ME2 had. I think Hudson or one of the other public faces of ME3 even admitted that the auto-enroll fetch quests in ME3 were kind of crappy because they ran out of time.
ME2 is pared down in multiple ways. For one, the planets were no longer skyboxes for you to explore, they were instead a small section of the planet you were visiting. A detailed staging area instead of a wide expanse with one or two points of interest. "On rails!" people said. "The world feels smaller!" people said (The world actually felt larger to me, because ME2 had detailed unique locations for each missions, while every location in ME1 was the same prefab building, over and over again, so I never, ever understood this complaint). Side missions within that world were often, "I'm on this mission to recruit Jack, but let me pick up this journal that some guy at the bar said he wanted while I'm here." At least that's how I remember those side missions. Very little to commit to, but on the other hand not a lot of actual content there, either.
The recruitment and loyalty missions weren't like that, but the ME:A recruitment and loyalty (and dates, and friendly chats) aren't like that, either, so that's not what we're comparing.
I agree, the whole game is one giant setup, so of course it feels unsatisfying in many regards. But even media that is meant as setups for sequels (Lord of the Rings, for example) should feel satisfying in their own right. Plus, I agree it's not like a Telltale game and it shouldn't be. But the choices should at least give me the illusion that they matter. I should perceive choice, even when it doesn't exist.
There's multiple things going on that affect the perception of choice that MA:A just lacks. I blame it somewhat on all the text-based results we're presented (emails, logs). My choice doesn't need to alter the course of all things, but it needs to feel like it matters. For instance, once I found out that colonizing worlds
But it's not only about perception, but of impact as well. There's not a single difficult choice from MA:A that I'm going to remember down the line. The one choice that gave me the most pause was between the
Does the Nexus even change graphically in MA:A while you get more AVP? If it does, it's so slight I can't tell. Again, another loss that if implemented, would add to the illusion of choice. Imagine the Nexus slowly coming together, like the armada in MA3. You know that first fetch quest at the beginning of the game about
I am probably unfairly comparing MA:A to Mass Effect 2, but I don't really think it's unfair considering they've had multiple games in between to hone their craft.
That said, I did enjoy the banter between Drak and PB, even Drak and Vetra was nice to have on missions. Laim ended up being my Kaiden, so if I thought the game was going to give me a suicide mission, I surely would have had him aboard. ;-)
Also, I'm not done the game just yet but the single word I've come to associate with this game is "Tedium". I think I'm close to the end so I'll keep at it it but so much of it feels so tedious.
My current progress:
Worst example of "Tedium" I can remember:
I actually think ME2 had the best side missions in the series and probably in Bioware games as a whole. Each one was focused on a unique area with assets and often mechanics set up specifically for that mission - think traversing the crashed ship on the edge of a mountain or the lengthy trek to find out what was up with those malfunctioning robots that took you from an abandoned space station to a derelict ship to a crash site to a robot factory, each with unique dialogue and locations.
There were fewer of them, and they didn't always have anything to do with the plot. But they were meaty in terms of content, memorable to play, and built on the tense working relationship between Shepard and the Alliance and other factions in the galaxy while also showing that he/she was still interested in doing more carrying out the Illusive Man's mission.
I like it for shotgun builds a lot, though it is currently a bit heavy.
How is it that in both ME3 and MEA, the smart choke does not work at all?? You'd think they'd get it right this time around.
try this
Eh, wouldn't make you a loser, just means you have different tastes. Some people cling to a single franchise because they hold that much meaning to them and never engage other stuff... so it goes. :P
Tactical games are okay, as are wargames, haven't done either in a while. Kind of lost interest in them. Definitely like 3rd person RPGs.
I wouldn't really categorize games like LoL or DOTA as MMOs though, as they're arena types with a different flow. I guess the loot acquisition and grind is there in them. But they don't really do it for me either. I think Gigantic is interesting, but it's a hybrid of the concept.
--
As for your question about smart chokes, I believe the decals from firing them don't change when firing them at walls, which is the common way people check their accuracy. But the shell spread will adjust if you shoot at a target, such that your crosshair/reticle turns red from it being actively targeted.
If you want to test that, shoot at an enemy from a certain distance both with and without the mod, and see how much damage it does?
Obviously, being obsessed with ME3 and ME:A MP cuts against the grain a little, but what can I say - they are ridiculously fun despite the limited variety and tad-o-grind. Mass Effect is pretty special in a lot of ways tho. I will try your proposed smart-choke test, but getting really close is OK too.
try this
Only possible with the scattershot as all other shotguns have random weapon spread or single shots.
But yes it should be possible to determine with the scattershot. But I really doubt it's going to work. There is no indication that the pellet decals aren't where damage is done.
I'm on PC, so I didn't think there was any auto-aim. Very odd. Anyone else notice auto aim on PC with Turbocharge, or am I an Octopus??
try this
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
What bout ME:A? Does it work for you?
try this
Not tried it in A as I run barrel/melee on my AAdept, currently, but I can confidently agree that in 3 it 100% worked great. It MAY have only really applied to ADS mode, however, but I can't recall. Made the Piranha very scary.
Especially useful on the claymore in ME3.
Have 8 hours in MEA multi. Can't say anything.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I gotta say, I really like the classes more overall in ME:A. There were a large number of classes that I just didn't enjoy playing in ME3, but they're all pretty fun in MEA (that I've tried).
Combo nerfing is not smile-inducing, but I can use much, much, much better weapons on casters and that nearly makes up for it. The sad part is that if they did buff combos and powers they'll have to buff enemies as well or take away some of the gun selection from casters, because casters seem fine on Gold without good combos.
try this
PC has aim assist on by default. But I think it only snaps when you're not zoomed. But I haven't tested it.
Hell, I can't figure out how to talk to the other players. In fact, how the shit do you get that working, or is it working and everyone just instantly mutes me as soon as I say hi??
try this
The Asari Huntress(well, for a class that has team cloak) is pretty weak unless:
A: you're playing next to a shield boost class
B: the UP6 enhance on offensive biotics stacks.
IDK... it's kind of hard to notice aim assist on a mouse, unless it's really, really heavy. That level of sensitivity/control just isn't really noticeable vs your hand motions.
I play with it off in most games because it mucks with my prioritization of targets. Nothing more annoying than your aim being thrown by a closer target in your scope's periphery.
Default is Push to Talk and the default binding is B iirc.
Maybe that's it. I tend to play with super-high sensitivity because I have no space for the mouse. I have a feeling that has fucked me over a few times and I'm going to turn it off.
try this
Could be shit wasn't working, could just be no one wants to talk (which is weird IMO).
Edit: Then again, maybe experienced MP cats will say that's because in-game conversation is a dumpster fire, idk.
try this
I groovin' on the Arthur Dent off to the left...
This seems like pretty extreme hyperbole? ME2 was universally adored, and while there were a couple people who groused regularly about the Citadel being smaller or skyboxes, the game was acclaimed and marveled at as an effective way to 180 on many of the predecessor's flaws. Unlike DA2 (outside of these forums, anyway), ME2 has never been in want of defenders. That's not to say nothing was lost in the transition, but the entire game community experienced nothing resembling uproar over ME2.
I agree that people overlooked a lot of dull shit in ME1 like the prefabs or how an entire story planet consisted entirely of recruiting Liara, which just goes to show that an incredibly good climax can make up for a lot.
ME2 was definitely not universally adored. Oh, oh, so much hatred for the weapons/gear system. So much. (Note: I thought it was fine. Widow uber alles.)
Every game in the series has had people complaining that it did too much (thing) while removing (other thing) when as EVERYONE KNOWS (thing) is the most important part of the series. Just fill in values as appropriate.
Is just how it goes. Some will hate (thing), some want more (thing), nobody agrees on how much (thing) at any point.
Some people get really fucking mad when you take away their junk loot. Probably because junk loot is part of the video addiction game formula.
Going back to the ME1 style "everything nailed down" isn't really ideal. The only thing that I want to find in ME:A are:
Resources (which I can then sell for cash money to buy augmentations)
Research Points
Mods
Everything else is clutter and even the mods are clutter and I would really love to have those be things that i can upgrade and apply to any weapon and not have to goddamn worry about what is in my inventory.
Edit: fuck inventory; this isn't recretter
Trivially minor Aya spoilers, but still.
I have at least... 3? Empty spots in the case AND I WANT THEM FILLED. God dammit.
What I liked about it in ME2 was that it made actually looking for things not be a chore like in recent Bioware games because it was a limited thing. You would either find story elaborating datapads or credits or something genuinely worthwhile like an upgrade.
Literally added with no purpose beyond being able to be sold for money, in which case why not give you money instead?
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Alternative answer: Once Destiny gets a PC release PC gamers will perhaps give the tiniest of fucks about Destiny :P
...and why do the models look like crap in comparison to what Shepard had?