Mass Effect Remastered coming soon and new Mass Effect Game in the Works

[LibraryOgre]

This does bring up the question, for those who completed Andromeda (I only played a few missions) how many people consistently used the power switch system? A fairly common criticism I heard was that many people fiddled with it for a bit, but by the end had created their go-to list of powers that allowed them to deal with all defense types and did not switch much if at all.

Which ended in the sad outcome that despite everyone getting far more freedom to design their character, everyone more or less played the same.

I power switched a couple times, first when Peelee gave me my new toy, then a couple times to get things right... but it was "I made some bad choices" not "I want to try out new things." I didn't even switch profiles often... I liked what I had an stayed with it.

[factotum]

I don't particularly care myself whether an RPG is class-based or not--all I really ask is that levelling up makes substantive improvements to your character's ability, e.g. don't just add 2% to damage or something like that (back when I played WoW it was an egregious offender in this regard, although I guess it may have improved since). This is why I don't like level scaling as a general rule, because what's the point of my character becoming more powerful when everything else does as well? I ought to be able to take my newfound power and absolutely rip through some enemy that was annoying me a couple of levels ago!

[Zevox]

I don't particularly care myself whether an RPG is class-based or not--all I really ask is that levelling up makes substantive improvements to your character's ability, e.g. don't just add 2% to damage or something like that (back when I played WoW it was an egregious offender in this regard, although I guess it may have improved since).

Amen to that. That was one of those really annoying parts about the first Mass Effect that I was very happy to see them change in 2 and 3 - there were levels in that game where you improved some abilities by literal fractions of a percent, and it utterly baffled me why you would ever design a game like that. Fewer power-ups but making them much more meaningful in the sequels was such a huge improvement in that regard.

[Morty]

To delve further. Which abilities did you end up using?

I started out with concussive shot, grenades and the barricade-creating power. I was trying to make a non-biotic short-range combatant, so later on I picked up the tactical cloak and flamethrower. Around that time I started running out of powers to take, so I also picked energy drain, then the flak cannon and proximity mines. The flak cannon turned out more useful than I had given it credit for, but proximity mines were as useful as mines usually are. Which is to say not very.

I understand the appeal of having discrete roles for a character, instead of taking every which ability and ending up with a flavorless mix. So maybe the classes should be just that, instead of halfway that and halfway the combat/tech/biotic split. So I can for example play a vanguard-style character without biotics.

So one of the things I've never liked about classes in RGPs is that they basically ask you to choose how you want to play the game before you actually play the game. If you choose wrong, you've gotta restart the whole darn thing - which usually results in me trying multiple options until finally the idea of playing the first 30 minutes of the game again is just boring beyond reason and I give up. Mass Effect 1 avoided this problem by making all guns so terrible to use (particularly in the beginning) that it honestly didn't matter which one you picked, and the idea of replaying it was pretty much a firm nope. Andromeda side-stepped this problem by not having classes, but it also made leveling up into an utter snoozefest. Once you had a couple abilities that worked ok, getting more didn't really feel all that impactful, and most of the ones I tried felt kinda samey anyway.

I think it's useful here to look at how other third person open-worldish actiony games do things. Which generally means you have a three-pronged talent tree. Although done basically to death at this point, it does work pretty well, since you get the defined playstyles that come from each tree, but also the ability to pick up abilities from other trees if you want them. Depending on how generous the game is with skill points, and if they level-gate higher tier upgrades on the branches, you may be quite encouraged to diversify your skillset. And it sidesteps the problem of choosing your entire playstyle at minute zero, since if you really hate sniping or whatever, you're only out a couple of skillpoints if you switch to mainlining a different branch.

The other thing that a lot of similar titles with a bit more action game in their DNA do is that they use the skill tree to gradually add more complexity to your control options, rather than the more RPG-ish approach of just giving you bigger numbers. The 2012 Tomb Raider reboot does a really excellent job of this; by the end of the game you have a much wider set of abilities for combat and traversal than you do at the beginning. Andromeda, to my recollection, really does not do much of this. You've got a set of powers you can swap out, but they're pretty much just more numbers* or different status effects. Which is another thing that makes leveling up uninteresting, it's just more of the same.

*The gun upgrades in Andromeda are by far the worst offender here. Because they take pretty rare crafting mats, you actually need to choose which guns to keep up to date pretty carefully. But all upgrading them does is stack on some more damage so you can keep up with the number treadmill of enemy HP bars. It's a whole lotta busywork, and it adds up to diddly-squat in terms of actually impacting gameplay. The new guns you find can change the way you play, as can modding them out with different ammo types and so on, but the upgrading is utterly pointless RPG crap.

The problem with this in Mass Effect specifically is biotics. You can't really pick up a biotic ability mid-game, because either you're born a biotic or you're not.

Of course, as much as I grumble, I won't be too broken up if this next game does go back to classes. Mass Effect's classes are still better than Dragon Age's warrior/mage/rogue silliness. Not just DA's, really, way too many games go with it.

[factotum]

The problem with this in Mass Effect specifically is biotics. You can't really pick up a biotic ability mid-game, because either you're born a biotic or you're not.

Just treat it the same way as characters who gain sorcerer levels in D&D--you totally had the ability all along, you just didn't realise it until something triggered it.

[Dienekes]

I think it's useful here to look at how other third person open-worldish actiony games do things. Which generally means you have a three-pronged talent tree. Although done basically to death at this point, it does work pretty well, since you get the defined playstyles that come from each tree, but also the ability to pick up abilities from other trees if you want them. Depending on how generous the game is with skill points, and if they level-gate higher tier upgrades on the branches, you may be quite encouraged to diversify your skillset. And it sidesteps the problem of choosing your entire playstyle at minute zero, since if you really hate sniping or whatever, you're only out a couple of skillpoints if you switch to mainlining a different branch.

The other thing that a lot of similar titles with a bit more action game in their DNA do is that they use the skill tree to gradually add more complexity to your control options, rather than the more RPG-ish approach of just giving you bigger numbers. The 2012 Tomb Raider reboot does a really excellent job of this; by the end of the game you have a much wider set of abilities for combat and traversal than you do at the beginning. Andromeda, to my recollection, really does not do much of this. You've got a set of powers you can swap out, but they're pretty much just more numbers* or different status effects. Which is another thing that makes leveling up uninteresting, it's just more of the same.

Interestingly (or maybe not), I've often idly thought that were I ever to design a game it'd be a companion style RPG much like a Dragon Age/Mass Effect that just went whole hog into playing like an action game. You start as a swordsman and you learn the basics of light attack, heavy attack, block/parry and the directions. And as you level instead of getting bigger numbers I never cared about you unlock more complex controls and moves. Learning to Feint, Lunge, Beat, various attack chains and so on.

Though I admit I did think of it as a class system with the generic Fighter/Mage/Rogue because I wished for each class to play and build completely different from each other. It would not make sense to learn how to Feint with your sword when you're playing a Mage who instead is learning button inputs to cast spells at different intensities.

But that's just the thoughts of a bored man in his free time with no money or ability to code. An idea man if you will. Or more accurately called "a useless person."

[Zevox]

Interestingly (or maybe not), I've often idly thought that were I ever to design a game it'd be a companion style RPG much like a Dragon Age/Mass Effect that just went whole hog into playing like an action game. You start as a swordsman and you learn the basics of light attack, heavy attack, block/parry and the directions. And as you level instead of getting bigger numbers I never cared about you unlock more complex controls and moves. Learning to Feint, Lunge, Beat, various attack chains and so on.

Though I admit I did think of it as a class system with the generic Fighter/Mage/Rogue because I wished for each class to play and build completely different from each other. It would not make sense to learn how to Feint with your sword when you're playing a Mage who instead is learning button inputs to cast spells at different intensities.

But that's just the thoughts of a bored man in his free time with no money or ability to code. An idea man if you will. Or more accurately called "a useless person."

Speaking of, am I the only one hoping they make major changes to the combat system in the next Dragon Age? Because seriously, the real-time-with-pause thing worked fine for KotOR, which was emulating a D20 system in real-time video game form, but the further we go into a series like Dragon Age trying to just use similar mechanics but make them its own, the clearer it seems that the end result is just feeling like something half-assed. Like it can't decide whether it wants to be a strategic turn-based game or a true action game, and consequently just isn't capturing the best parts of either.

Going in either direction would be good by me, but damn it, at this point I wish they'd pick one and go full-blown into it.

[Morty]

Speaking of, am I the only one hoping they make major changes to the combat system in the next Dragon Age? Because seriously, the real-time-with-pause thing worked fine for KotOR, which was emulating a D20 system in real-time video game form, but the further we go into a series like Dragon Age trying to just use similar mechanics but make them its own, the clearer it seems that the end result is just feeling like something half-assed. Like it can't decide whether it wants to be a strategic turn-based game or a true action game, and consequently just isn't capturing the best parts of either.

Going in either direction would be good by me, but damn it, at this point I wish they'd pick one and go full-blown into it.

What very little we saw of what looked like gameplay suggested a further move into an actiony direction. We'll see how it works, but if they want to just go all-in and make it an action game, fine by me. Better than straddling the fence.

[Dienekes]

Speaking of, am I the only one hoping they make major changes to the combat system in the next Dragon Age? Because seriously, the real-time-with-pause thing worked fine for KotOR, which was emulating a D20 system in real-time video game form, but the further we go into a series like Dragon Age trying to just use similar mechanics but make them its own, the clearer it seems that the end result is just feeling like something half-assed. Like it can't decide whether it wants to be a strategic turn-based game or a true action game, and consequently just isn't capturing the best parts of either.

Going in either direction would be good by me, but damn it, at this point I wish they'd pick one and go full-blown into it.

By Bioware's own statements the Dragon Age combat system is designed to be able to be played both as an Action RPG and as a Tactical turn based game. That is the goal and they succeeded.

Not, you know, well. It does both things kinda terribly. But it does do them.

To answer your question, yes, I would vastly prefer Dragon Age: X-Com or Dragon Age: Dark Souls/God of War/Devil May Cry. But I strongly suspect after Andromeda and Anthem they will not be taking risks. I expect a cleaned up version of DA:I. And I kind of get why. Action games by their nature require at least a little fast paced skill to actually beat and the last thing Bioware will want to do is alienate people who will find that too difficult to play. Nor will they want to lose the money from the people who read "turn based" as a bad thing.

[Zevox]

What very little we saw of what looked like gameplay suggested a further move into an actiony direction. We'll see how it works, but if they want to just go all-in and make it an action game, fine by me. Better than straddling the fence.

Absolutely nothing in the teaser looks like gameplay to me, it all looks like typical CG trailer/cutscene stuff.

[Morty]

Absolutely nothing in the teaser looks like gameplay to me, it all looks like typical CG trailer/cutscene stuff.

The part where someone armed with a bow is shooting some targets looked like gameplay to me. I could be wrong. Earlier this year I believe we saw some very brief and basic snippets of what looked like in-game animations.

[LibraryOgre]

The problem with this in Mass Effect specifically is biotics. You can't really pick up a biotic ability mid-game, because either you're born a biotic or you're not.

I made an exception between ME1 and ME2... I figured that your time in space, next to an exploded spaceship, got you the eezo exposure you needed, and the Lazarus process got it worked out.

[warty goblin]

Interestingly (or maybe not), I've often idly thought that were I ever to design a game it'd be a companion style RPG much like a Dragon Age/Mass Effect that just went whole hog into playing like an action game. You start as a swordsman and you learn the basics of light attack, heavy attack, block/parry and the directions. And as you level instead of getting bigger numbers I never cared about you unlock more complex controls and moves. Learning to Feint, Lunge, Beat, various attack chains and so on.

Though I admit I did think of it as a class system with the generic Fighter/Mage/Rogue because I wished for each class to play and build completely different from each other. It would not make sense to learn how to Feint with your sword when you're playing a Mage who instead is learning button inputs to cast spells at different intensities.

But that's just the thoughts of a bored man in his free time with no money or ability to code. An idea man if you will. Or more accurately called "a useless person."

Speaking as another useless person, I'd play the hell out of that.

Kingdoms of Amalur sort of does this, since the melee/magic/rogue skill trees are very much structured around unlocking different moves and combos for individual weapons. Because it's an RPG there's a fair amount of bigger-numbers stuff in there as well, and the whole thing is 100% pure fantasy nonsense, but within that it's a pretty good execution of progression through mechanical complexity and ability.

Weirdly I find moar numbers design less annoying in fantasy games than sci-fi or modern ones. I'll readily believe that my magic, rune-encrusted sword is just plain deadlier than my bog standard iron sword. My disbelief is much harder to suspend when it comes to firearms though. Like last night I found a common and an uncommon version of the same SMG in Cyberpunk. What, does the second somehow... bullet harder than the first? Was it crafted by a magician smith under a new moon using ground dragon's teeth or something?

[Zevox]

The part where someone armed with a bow is shooting some targets looked like gameplay to me. I could be wrong.

Eh, nah, still looks much more likely to be just CG trailer stuff to me.

Earlier this year I believe we saw some very brief and basic snippets of what looked like in-game animations.

Sure, but it was highly incomplete and didn't really tell us anything.

Kingdoms of Amalur sort of does this, since the melee/magic/rogue skill trees are very much structured around unlocking different moves and combos for individual weapons. Because it's an RPG there's a fair amount of bigger-numbers stuff in there as well, and the whole thing is 100% pure fantasy nonsense, but within that it's a pretty good execution of progression through mechanical complexity and ability.

Kingdoms of Amalur was okay for a first try at making an RPG with DMC-esque action game combat, but I recall coming away from it overall disappointed. It's been too long now to point to all of the specific examples I could've back then*, but I recall it feeling comparatively clunky, and some of the abilities that you got just ending up so broken powerful that they made even the highest difficulty setting of the game very easy. It's the type of thing I'd love to see another series - like Dragon Age - try, but it's hardly a shining example of successfully pulling it off in my mind.

*Though I do remember one: the parry window with the shield was comically huge. I went out of my way to test how far you push it at one point, as I kept getting parries when I didn't expect to, and it turned out that you could put that thing up a fair bit before the enemy's blow was going to connect and still have it count as a parry. Which definitely contributed to the game feeling super easy.

Final Fantasy 7 Remake is a much better example for me. Though in some ways it's more removed from the Devil May Cry/Bayonetta/God of War tradition that Kingdoms of Amalur was going for, it still captures a similar feel while doing much better at integrating RPG-style mechanics with its combat system in a more natural way, rewarding you for using moves that specific enemies have weaknesses to, or recognizing vulnerabilities in enemies' particular method of fighting and exploiting them with your abilities or equipment options, and doing so with not just more damage, but the stagger mechanic that lead to moments of huge vulnerability for you to exploit.

[LibraryOgre]

You know, I've got my Savage Worlds set-up for Mass Effect, and it occurs to me: Andromeda would be a great place to set that.

And, unrelated: I'm now picturing an ark that wound up with a few vorcha on board, awake and active, so they had to wake a lot of people up and fight the vorcha... and so they arrive in Andromeda after centuries of warfare against the vorcha, with a load of their people, about half of whom have been eaten by vorcha needing meat.

I think I know what I would do with the Quarian ark, now.

[Anteros]

Weirdly I find moar numbers design less annoying in fantasy games than sci-fi or modern ones. I'll readily believe that my magic, rune-encrusted sword is just plain deadlier than my bog standard iron sword. My disbelief is much harder to suspend when it comes to firearms though. Like last night I found a common and an uncommon version of the same SMG in Cyberpunk. What, does the second somehow... bullet harder than the first? Was it crafted by a magician smith under a new moon using ground dragon's teeth or something?

Sure. Some guns already bullet harder than others in real life. I don't see why that wouldn't carry over to a game.

[warty goblin]

Sure. Some guns already bullet harder than others in real life. I don't see why that wouldn't carry over to a game.

Sure, between cartridges you can obviously have very substantial differences. Within cartridges about the only things you can do to increase bullet energy is (to a point) increase the barrel length, and to a minor degree change operating mechanism.

But two guns of the same type by the same manufacturer will be identical in all these attributes. Gun A just isn't going to have 10% higher muzzle velocity than gun B (about 20% higher muzzle energy, which is roughly damage). To the limited resolution of video game simulations, they will be completely exchangeable.

The only two exceptions I can think of to this are if one of the guns is just completely worn out, to the point that the bullet can no longer form a gas seal with the barrel, or the gas port has eroded to the size of a small cave or something. In which case you're going to have bigger problems than loss of muzzle velocity, namely your bullets going everywhere, or the thing just plain disintegrating. The other is if you care about high accuracy at very long ranges, where lots of very tiny differences start to matter. That's more about consistency than power though. I don't think even milsims are anywhere near that granular, let alone your standard action RPG, where super long range is like 300 meters.

[Rynjin]

Most of the damage differences are based off modifications of some kind; extra energy damage, etc., but there's a whole lot of weirdness with the ones that AREN'T; you'll just find two Nowakis with otherwise identical stats, but higher physical damage on one somehow.

In the end, "it's just a game, I really should relax" is a good mantra to have.

[Morty]

In the end, "it's just a game, I really should relax" is a good mantra to have.

It would be, but the treadmill of largely-identical weapons with different numbers is actively detrimental to games where it appears for far more reasons than realism.

[Anteros]

Sure, between cartridges you can obviously have very substantial differences. Within cartridges about the only things you can do to increase bullet energy is (to a point) increase the barrel length, and to a minor degree change operating mechanism.

But two guns of the same type by the same manufacturer will be identical in all these attributes. Gun A just isn't going to have 10% higher muzzle velocity than gun B (about 20% higher muzzle energy, which is roughly damage). To the limited resolution of video game simulations, they will be completely exchangeable.

The only two exceptions I can think of to this are if one of the guns is just completely worn out, to the point that the bullet can no longer form a gas seal with the barrel, or the gas port has eroded to the size of a small cave or something. In which case you're going to have bigger problems than loss of muzzle velocity, namely your bullets going everywhere, or the thing just plain disintegrating. The other is if you care about high accuracy at very long ranges, where lots of very tiny differences start to matter. That's more about consistency than power though. I don't think even milsims are anywhere near that granular, let alone your standard action RPG, where super long range is like 300 meters.

I don't really see why that bothers you more than one iron sword cutting harder than another iron sword.

[LibraryOgre]

It occurs to me that my ideal equipment grind is pretty much Legend of Zelda.

You have a sword. It is a good sword, and you can use it all game if you choose. BUT, there's ONE super-special sword in the game that is better.

[warty goblin]

I don't really see why that bothers you more than one iron sword cutting harder than another iron sword.

Edge geometry, centers of mass, inertia, and percussion are all subtle things, which can make substantial differences in handling and performance. Since pretty much all games with swords are set in times and places without automated mass production, they're going to vary between blades.

Also, as I said, magic. Which is where most of the variability usually shows up in RPGs.

And from a gameplay point of view, swords are just handled more abstractly than guns. Sure you've got your light and heavy attacks, but two swords usually feel pretty identical. If they're only distinguished by dps, I don't really care about deciding which to use based on dps. In a good shooter different guns will feel quite distinct, and be built for different situations. I want to use the gun whose feel and tactical options suit me best, not the one with the highest randomly rolled dps stat.

But really, in a first or third person action game, I'd rather just not be dealing with randomly rolled loot all the time, be it swords or guns. I have literally never wrapped up a gaming session and thought to myself "I had so much fun sorting through my inventory, comparing all the little red and green arrows!" It's just asinine arithmetic wrapped up in the human brain's enormous vulnerability to randomly variable rewards.

[Dienekes]

It occurs to me that my ideal equipment grind is pretty much Legend of Zelda.

You have a sword. It is a good sword, and you can use it all game if you choose. BUT, there's ONE super-special sword in the game that is better.

My preference has always been:

You start with The Basic Weapon, which lets you understand the way the basics of the game are played. You can use it from start to finish if you want.

But then there are items you pick up that may not necessarily be better but open up different play patterns or interact with the enemies in different ways.

Or in other words. I don’t want Sword, Sword+1, Sword+2, all the way to Sword+999.

I’d rather have Arming Sword, Longsword, Axe, Spear, Mace, Halberd. So long as Arming Sword remains viable. And switching weapons then requires the player change how they play to use the weapon optimally.

That was actually something I thought ME2 did reasonably well. With each Weapon Group getting different variations on their weapon that made play a bit different.

At least until you got to the Collector Ship and got a super version of your starting weapon that blew all the other options out of the water in effectiveness. Unless you got the DLC weapons which were comparable again.

[Morty]

Even before the Collector ship, several of the second weapons were straight-up upgrades of the original models - pistols, SMGs and shotguns, for sure. And the DLC weapons were pretty broken. Still miles ahead of ME1's mess of an inventory. ME3 had actual variety with little hassle - the one thing it could stand to lose was the numerical weapon upgrades, which were little more than a money sink and made it harder to try weapons out freely.

[warty goblin]

So to walk back my earlier no moar numbers argument a bit, getting straight out upgrades occassionally can be fine, particularly in longer games. That way you can roll out some newer, tougher enemies to supplement the existing foe roster, and if you fight the improved Mk. 2 baddies a couple times with the Mk. 1 weapons, Mk. 2 will be a fun and distinct improvement.

Where things start to go south for me is if the size of the upgrade is small, and the frequency is high. Changing out equipment every 15 minutes just means a lot of time spent on whatever godawful inventory system the game has, comparing dps numbers. And the new gun will make me feel moderately more powerful for all of about one level, before the enemy HP bars bloat out a bit more and we're back to equilibrium. Or the difficulty curve is flat broken, and everything after hour 5 is a cakewalk, except for the occasional optional fight or boss or something, which has such a pile of HP the fight takes forever, or you need to go grind for a week.

Why yes, I don't really like Borderlands, why do you ask?

But if I get a fun new gun or sword or whatever every couple hours, that's cool. Bonus points if it is disting6from the previous item by something more creative than just +20% damage.

[tonberrian]

Yeah aside from the "there's 10 levels of every gun and you can't even unlock them all on one playthrough" I thought the variety of guns, especially all the other modifications, was acceptable in Andromeda. I particularly liked the "shotgun" that shot a big energy orb that homed a little bit, and my melee weapon of choice was the asari sword because it let you teleport, I think. But the grinding you had to do to keep your gun relevant was not fun.

[Morty]

Yeah aside from the "there's 10 levels of every gun and you can't even unlock them all on one playthrough" I thought the variety of guns, especially all the other modifications, was acceptable in Andromeda. I particularly liked the "shotgun" that shot a big energy orb that homed a little bit, and my melee weapon of choice was the asari sword because it let you teleport, I think. But the grinding you had to do to keep your gun relevant was not fun.

From what I remember, Andromeda's inventory felt like they took ME3's inventory and made it more annoying by adding crafting. But it wasn't as bad as I had worried and there was some decent customization available. Including mods that changed how the weapon worked, like by making it use ME1-style heating or making it fire lasers.

The worst example of a gear treadmill is probably Divinity: Original Sin 2, to me. You have to frequently swap out weapons to keep up with the bloated damage, armor and health of the enemies. Witcher 3 is saved from being quite as bad because you can just craft witcher school gear - otherwise it might be worse than D:OS2.

[Anteros]

From what I remember, Andromeda's inventory felt like they took ME3's inventory and made it more annoying by adding crafting. But it wasn't as bad as I had worried and there was some decent customization available. Including mods that changed how the weapon worked, like by making it use ME1-style heating or making it fire lasers.

The worst example of a gear treadmill is probably Divinity: Original Sin 2, to me. You have to frequently swap out weapons to keep up with the bloated damage, armor and health of the enemies. Witcher 3 is saved from being quite as bad because you can just craft witcher school gear - otherwise it might be worse than D:OS2.

I absolutely agree about Divinity 2. I'm someone that actually likes the loot treadmill and finding new gear, but that game's gear system was a slog even for me. You have to do more to make new loot interesting than just increase the numbers every level. Especially for a system that expects you to change gear as often as Divinity.

[Callos_DeTerran]

This news makes me feel very...torn.

On one hand, I loved the Mass Effect trilogy, even the ending. It could honestly still be improved, sure, but I think the base is quite good. So a remaster that updates the graphics, maybe fixes/streamlines the game play? I'd be so very down for a new adventure with Commander Shepard and his/her crew. I'd love it in fact.

...On the other hand, Mass Effect Andromeda utterly broke my heart in terms of missed appeal. Its one of the few games I was hyped for that I got...and...I didn't just not finish because I forgot to or started to play something else. I put Andromeda down, walked away, and only recently reinstalled it because a friend really wants to play the multiplayer with me.

That..that makes it awfully hard for me to get excited about a new Mass Effect game, combined with how final three was and the fact future games won't be set in the world my Shepard shaped either because its in the past/future or so far distant they don't need to address what happened in Mass Effect 3. So barring some phenomenal publicity on their part (something Mass Effect is more than capable of mind), I think the only thing that'd make me excited would be if they announced the new Mass Effect was part of a new series.

One where they flat out say 'these games follow a Control ending, these games follow the destroy ending, and these ones follow the Synthesis ending'. You know, Legend of Zelda timeline that bitch. That would be pretty cool. What? You want a Refusal ending game series? That's easy. Its a blank screen that says 'everyone died because Shepard was an idiot/a brat'.

[GloatingSwine]

Weirdly I find moar numbers design less annoying in fantasy games than sci-fi or modern ones. I'll readily believe that my magic, rune-encrusted sword is just plain deadlier than my bog standard iron sword. My disbelief is much harder to suspend when it comes to firearms though. Like last night I found a common and an uncommon version of the same SMG in Cyberpunk. What, does the second somehow... bullet harder than the first? Was it crafted by a magician smith under a new moon using ground dragon's teeth or something?

I have a theory about this.

Swords are a product of individual craftsmanship, guns are a product of industrial process.

Industrial process is designed to produce uniformity*. Individual craftsmanship inherently introduces variation whether it is desired or not.

That means that if you have two swords that look similar to the eye they can actually be very different, one can be much much better made than the other, better balanced, better tempered, better quality metals.

But two guns of the same model are designed to be as identical as possible*.

So it's easier to accept the idea that you can sword harder with a better sword than it is to accept that this M16 bullets harder than that other M16 because this one is purple and that one is green.



* Uniformity is a significant reason behind why guns even work properly. Having an exact fit of projectile to barrel is necessary for any degree of accuracy, that's why basically every pre-industrial firearm was basically limited to "point in the general direction of the enemy regiment and hope".