You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

They are also used by Jedi who are no longer on the front lines and have more-or-less retired (or at least as much as you can retire from a faith-order). Atop that, Disney have a bad track record of keeping consistent with previous Star Wars lore so it could easily be because it just looked cool to them.

Still, thanks for the note.

is this the series or the comics? If so, waht part?

Honestly, I don't see it as THAT bad but it feels like it's getting it's grounding. I felt the clone wars was kinda the same. I haven't seen season 2 yet but I'm guessing that with enough time the story will feel a bit more fleshed out and mature in a sense.

I'm sure it will, however I as a viewer am not actually interested in the characters. Star Wars has always been at its best when iconic visuals are blended with interesting ideas. The idea of Anakin Skywalker raising an apprentice during in the Clone Wars made for a fantastic setting and a fantastic roster of characters.

However, Rebels has a VERY generic protagonist being taught by a VERY generic mentor. They are accompanied by the least Mandalorian Mandalorian I've ever seen, an archetypal 'Dumb but Strong' character, an R2-D2 clone, and a Pilot who I do remember as being at least the most interesting of the crew.

Even the art design doesn't work:

Ezra:
vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/4/49/Ezra-SWRRvE.png/revision/latest?cb=20150530234056

Ahsoka:
vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/8/8b/Ahsoka_full.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20081018032327

You can see from just their pictures the difference of style. Rebels, the show about the rough & tumble outlaws, has a main character whose art design is very, very clean. There is very little texture detail to his model. (Also what is that white thing on his leg supposed to be?)

Meanwhile Ahsoka looks like what you would expect a Jedi in a warzone to look like. Elegant, simple, but well-worn. She also typically doesn't do the Dreamworks smirk anywhere near as much as Ezra does it because despite Ezra being the one in the more dire situation, Ahsoka is the one who typically has the more varied reactions, and I'm not surprised either, given that Disney have embraced that insufferable smirk wholeheartedly:

i.gr-assets.com/images/S/photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1389873724i/8074857.jpg

That cocky "We're cool and one step ahead of you." kind of smirk. "Come and see how cool we are." Once you start seeing it you don't stop seeing it. It's all over advertising at the moment and it's utterly sickening. Rebels seems to embrace that smirk as a general tone. Whereas Clone Wars even early on nailed that feeling of warfare and danger with episodes like the one with Plo'koon and the Scavenger Droids blowing up the escape pods, Rebels plays out like a tongue in cheek kids adventure story.

Again, this is Kanan:

vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/swfans/images/8/82/KananJarrusPose.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140212224333

And this is Anakin:

site.unbeatablesale.com/img096/adgr816.gif

The art design on Kanan is flat and uninteresting, like he was designed to be a secondary one-off character rather than one of the characters that the story revolves around, whereas Anakin's design is built to reflect his personality. It is dark but utilitarian, mostly function with just a hint of form. The textures and models are also a lot more detailed than on Kanan.

Whilst early Clone Wars suffered from inconsistencies like how Ahsoka was at times way too childish for the setting and detracted from the theme and focus of the story (and there were some Jar Jar episodes), Rebels suffers from 'almost there' syndrome. Like, the art looks almost finished, the plot looks almost finished, the characters are almost interesting, the art design is almost iconic. Just like The Force Awakens and Battlefront it feels like the whole thing was lazily half-arsed by just enough people to fall flat and squander the potential. Thus far everything that Disney have produced under the Star Wars brand has been a great idea but executed very lazily.

Whereas Lucas Arts and Lucasfilm produced work that even at its worst (Phantom Menace) can be lauded for its world-building, scope, and some stand-out features, thus-far Disney has produced a Battlefront game sans most of the important features, a Star Wars film that pays homage to other Star Wars films and fails to be something of its own, and a T.V. series that is lesser in every way to its predecessor.

I'm not anti-disney. I really want these things to be good, but god damn they all fall short of the mark in the areas that matter.

thanks

If you want to save yourself some stress you can just look up the scenes involving Ahsoka and the ones involving Vader on youtube. They're the only ones that really matter.

will do

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

It's subjective, ultimately. I see just as much variety and maneuverability in Mass Effect as you probably do in Halo. The difference is that you can't jump like you're on the moon in ME, so it's more about a foot-based approach. But, again, you can be just as much of a running, gunning, sliding action hero who isn't married to cover in ME2 and 3 as you can in the Halo franchise, even without the zero-G jump. Take, for instance, the fight in ME2 where you protect Archangel's sniper position. There's so many ways to run around in his little base, gunning down mercs. Intentionally or not, I've done it differently just about every time. ME2 having waist-high walls you can duck behind doesn't somehow remove your ability to run around being a badass.

So, no, I'm not looking to debate you, because you don't see what I see. And, I don't mean to say that in a condescending or insulting way. You're convinced what I see isn't there, in the same way that I don't see how Halo makes combat any more dynamic than does Mass Effect. To me, it just doesn't. I get more satisfaction being an earth-bound guy who has to vault over cover than a guy who can moon-jump over everything. I'd rather customize Shepard's appearance, weapons, and skill set than be stuck with Master Chief, where my only sense of agency is weapon choice. There's nothing to really argue.

Wow, that felt pretty passive-aggressive.

But you seem to assume that I'm incapable of changing a viewpoint before we even start a debate so maybe this isn't a good idea.

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the level design and gameplay has been stellar since ME2.

Well I'm up for a debate on that if you are but if not then take care, man. Hope the game works out for you.

It's subjective, ultimately. I see just as much variety and maneuverability in Mass Effect as you probably do in Halo. The difference is that you can't jump like you're on the moon in ME, so it's more about a foot-based approach. But, again, you can be just as much of a running, gunning, sliding action hero who isn't married to cover in ME2 and 3 as you can in the Halo franchise, even without the zero-G jump. Take, for instance, the fight in ME2 where you protect Archangel's sniper position. There's so many ways to run around in his little base, gunning down mercs. Intentionally or not, I've done it differently just about every time. ME2 having waist-high walls you can duck behind doesn't somehow remove your ability to run around being a badass.

So, no, I'm not looking to debate you, because you don't see what I see. And, I don't mean to say that in a condescending or insulting way. You're convinced what I see isn't there, in the same way that I don't see how Halo makes combat any more dynamic than does Mass Effect. To me, it just doesn't. I get more satisfaction being an earth-bound guy who has to vault over cover than a guy who can moon-jump over everything. I'd rather customize Shepard's appearance, weapons, and skill set than be stuck with Master Chief, where my only sense of agency is weapon choice. There's nothing to really argue.

Wow, that felt pretty passive-aggressive.

But you seem to assume that I'm incapable of changing a viewpoint before we even start a debate so maybe this isn't a good idea.

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

If you played the ME franchise hiding behind cover like a bitch 100% of the time, I feel bad for ya. Ya done goofed. For one thing, for the times when you NEED cover or you'll die, the cover system has been very much improving ME2 and onward. But, there's classes, like the Soldier, Sentinel, and Vanguard, (and also the Infilitrator in ME1) that are specifically built to minimize your need for cover. I would play through again, and this time play more risk-reward style, be a bit gung-ho. Charge out of cover and blast a motherfucker away with a shotgun, then punch his friend to death.

Shepard's not quite as durable as Master Chief 100% of the time (though the Soldier and Infiltrator in ME1 can basically become invincible), but if you play smart and maneuver around the battlefield you can be just as much of an unstoppable action hero.

Vanguard was my main because cover is pain. Charge nova charge nova. Then I won the game. 2-Button gameplay was satisfying for a few minutes but I soon got over it because the moment the tough enemies show up you just end up with your screen shuddering about and you're rolling and ducking out of sight until the health bars of the enemy go down and then you move onto the next big baddie.

And I don't like Chief for being durable, I like him because he is mobile, but more than that I like Halo for it's level design (something that stopped being interesting/important after Halo 4 it seems). The levels are built to flow from one centre of combat into the next seamlessly and most of them are iconically memorable for their own reasons. The game really does feel like it is changing up the gameplay multiple times in every level.

Arbiter: When you land you get the sword and for a while the level is about using the invisibility to strafe around the enemies and the availability of the Energy sword encourages you to be up close and personal and use the invisibility to manouver. Then it changes up into a fantastic banshee section. Then the flood show up and shit gets tense. Then you're going down a lift. Then you gotta climb to the top of this big room. Then you gotta cut the cables and run your way back through the platform whilst it's in freefall, optionally avoiding the combat until you reach the Heretic Leader.

With Mass Effect I can't come up with any examples of really good level design. The gameplay has never been very good in the series, nor really has the level design, and it feels like one is getting in the way of the other.

Halo has recently become like that too though, with the level design and gameplay becoming mostly tawdry and unmemorable, but for the first three games it is mostly very well designed.

Anyway, Mass Effect never sold itself on gameplay anyway. First one I played was ME2 and I think the only reasons I stayed with the series were Mordin, Edi, and Joker. The other characters were okay (except Kaiden, Ashley, and token black guy) but it was Mordin, Edi, and Joker that I think summed up the best of the series. The conflicts, dangers, and progression of new technology.

Mordin is a tragic character in a thoroughly Greek sense. EDI is an entertaining, worrisome, yet ultimately optimistic look into what A.I. could be, and Joker was just a fun character. The others wouldn't have sold the series for me but those three did, and I happily muscled my way through the gameplay to get more from them.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I think the level design and gameplay has been stellar since ME2.

Well I'm up for a debate on that if you are but if not then take care, man. Hope the game works out for you.

It's subjective, ultimately. I see just as much variety and maneuverability in Mass Effect as you probably do in Halo. The difference is that you can't jump like you're on the moon in ME, so it's more about a foot-based approach. But, again, you can be just as much of a running, gunning, sliding action hero who isn't married to cover in ME2 and 3 as you can in the Halo franchise, even without the zero-G jump. Take, for instance, the fight in ME2 where you protect Archangel's sniper position. There's so many ways to run around in his little base, gunning down mercs. Intentionally or not, I've done it differently just about every time. ME2 having waist-high walls you can duck behind doesn't somehow remove your ability to run around being a badass.

So, no, I'm not looking to debate you, because you don't see what I see. And, I don't mean to say that in a condescending or insulting way. You're convinced what I see isn't there, in the same way that I don't see how Halo makes combat any more dynamic than does Mass Effect. To me, it just doesn't. I get more satisfaction being an earth-bound guy who has to vault over cover than a guy who can moon-jump over everything. I'd rather customize Shepard's appearance, weapons, and skill set than be stuck with Master Chief, where my only sense of agency is weapon choice. There's nothing to really argue.

Wow, that felt pretty passive-aggressive.

But you seem to assume that I'm incapable of changing a viewpoint before we even start a debate so maybe this isn't a good idea.

It'd be more accurate to say I'm being realistic about the prospect of anybody changing their viewpoint. I've been in these sorts of debates before, they're exhausting, and usually pointless back and forth. We experienced the same products differently. There's not much to argue there.

But, as a for instance, you've got perhaps my favorite ME gameplay video, the Cryoguard. The player actually uses her frozen enemies as a sort of soft cover. It's a beautiful thing to behold: youtu.be/SjT15-mrwDo

I wish I had video of me doing similar shenanigans with my Soldier in ME2. I went through Lair of the Shadow Broker with Squad Cryo Ammo and used Adrenaline Rush to get into close quarters so I could melee stun and freeze enemies into being my human shields. Unfortunately, not many people on Youtube seem to play Soldier as aggressively as I do.

(Cont.) Now, I'd like to highlight where I think that kind of mechanical progression would be natural to the ME universe's style of play.

If you could pick up a lot of different weapons within the gameplay then the ME universe would arguably have more ways to access them than the Halo universe does. Using Biotic powers to pull weapons from hard-to-reach locations or perhaps even out of the hands of weakened enemies, using the meaty soldier style to pull guns out of the enemy's hands or maybe they can move faster whilst carrying larger weaponry.

By putting elements that change up the gameplay into the levels themselves rather than just having it be something that is selected through the progression system outside of the combat, the game would open up new styles of play for each class.

If the ability to jump was added and the game moved away from being cover-based it would allow more environmental hazards whilst playing into the more physical aspect of the Soldier or perhaps the more magical aspect of the Biotics. Imagine being able to accidentally jump off of ledges to your death, but also being able to perhaps shoulder-barge people off of those same ledges instead of the world being surrounded by invisible, but certainly tangible walls.

I'm not saying I want the game to play like Halo, more that I want to see the game play more like it does in the cutscenes.

Well that's a decent example of games design. The cryo effects are transformative to the environment, allowing the player more freedom to dictate the flow of combat. It makes the puts more depths into the one variable element of the environment (the enemies). It also ties into one of the defining physical mechanic of the basic gameplay, namely the cover mechanic.

A similar example of the same principle in context would be the physical presence of enemies in the Halo games. They have collision effects in the same manner that the scenery does so occasionally you will find a situation where jumping on their heads is really valuable to you as a player, or how you can bounce grenades off of them to reach hidden enemies. The same can be said of the explosives in the game as they provide a shockwave and, used properly, they allow players greater mobility within the game through techniques like the grenade/rocket jump, and can be used to deflect certain projectiles or kill enemies via flying debris.

Those are clear examples of using the style of gameplay to add depth to the experience.

However, returning to the notion of level design that was brought up before. That room in ME2 is a fairly decent room design-wise. It doesn't really encourage all that much mechanical exploration but it doesn't hinder it either. The trouble with this is ultimately the trouble with the gameplay in ME2 as a whole. There is little to no discovery in the gameplay, and little to no variety either. Variety comes in the form of playing different classes on different playthroughs, or a few classes like the warrior have one or two ways to enjoy them so a re-play with a different spec can work.

However, the trouble with this is that it punishes experimentation quite harshly if things don't work out for the player. Compared to a similar system of classes like that of Diablo III the ME system is strict and punishing. Gameplay changes occur in minimal increments unlike in the Diablo system where each new level will unlock a new ability, or a new style on an existing ability, that leads to the player experiencing and experimenting with a lot of different play-styles and ability combinations, that can freely be swapped out if the encounter calls for something different.

Now, in fairness Diablo III doesn't really give the level of challenge I'd like (similar to Mass Effect) but that element of the character-building is solid.

However, to bring this back to the Halo comparison, whilst Mass Effect locks its gameplay variety behind a class and progression system (not a bad thing, btw) Halo's gameplay variety is always evident within the levels and players are free to change their styles on the go due to the gameplay being locked into the variety of different weapons, and how those weapons are obtained (usually from the corpses of enemies you have killed). It allows for a more free-flowing run & gun style of gameplay, and combined with the movement physics it encourages the player to usually be moving around the map, up and down drastic elevations, trying different techniques, picking up different weapons.

Whilst I will concede that that room in ME2 certainly does allow you to go around it in a different style every time you play through the game, the levels in Halo allow that for every sub-section of the game, and each one is built to play differently from the last.

That's why I want Mass Effect to mess about with its gameplay mechanics. Instead of multiple variations on 3 weapons (+ the more variable Heavy Weapon options) I would appreciate if there was a lot more variety in the sort of weapons you could get. I'd love to have more movement options in the gameplay and more variety in how I defeat my enemies.

I'm really not a fan of the ground-bound, 3rd-Person, Gears of War style of cover combat. The tab-targeting of the powerups and companions does add to the flavour of the combat but never enough to make encounters feel different from the last.

You can also fling objects, or even enemies, around using the physics of certain powers in Mass Effect. It does the same sort of thing. Grenade/rocket jumping is a little silly, and the game isn't about jumping, so while that would add a layer to the gameplay it would take away from its presentation. You're getting into TF2 territory there, which is a great shooter but has a certain aesthetic which is not Mass Effect's aesthetic.

There's quite a bit to discover in ME2 and beyond's gameplay. Like any other game, you can discover its logic and systems. Power combos, physics, reload canceling, the use of the different unlockable powers Shepard can get from their squadmates, how enemies differ in defenses and attack strategies. Variety comes in the form of how you approach the encounter, just like in Halo. The same class can use different powers and different weapons, or move through the room in a different way, play aggressively or stick to cover, use different strategies like the Cryoguard's improvised ice statue cover, take advantage of environmental factors like barrels and crates that can be shot or flung at enemies.There's a lot of tools in your toolbox. Meanwhile, in Halo, you've got your different weapons, the explosion physics, and moving through rooms in different ways. You're being reductive of Mass Effect's attributes while exaggerating the variables Halo presents. The way I see it, ME gives you more to play with overall.

In ME2 and ME3 you can respec. There's not really any punishing, since virtually any build can run through any difficulty with varying levels of success based on execution by the player. You can unlock new abilities you didn't have before in ME games, too. That's not unique to Diablo. You haven't described anything that isn't present in ME.

Again, this is why this argument is largely pointless, because we both have our biases. You're kind of just projecting this simplistic, reductive view onto ME2 and 3, whie I see there being even more variables to work with than Halo provides. Aside from jumping, Mass Effect has everything that Halo brings to the table and more. There isn't just the one room in ME2 that presents multiple encounter solutions, the vast majority are like that.

There's 5 main weapon categories in Mass Effect, not 3. And, especially in ME3, you have a lot of variety in those categories, easily as much as Halo. In shotguns you've got the Graal spike thrower, which can be charged for greater damage and fires a spray of spikes into the enemy that continually damage them. In that same category there's the more typical shotguns, like the semi-auto Scimitar and the one-shot blunderbuss that is the Claymore, as well as other unique weapons like the Reegar Carbine that basically functions as a flamethrower.

Okay then...?

I don't use tinder. Isn't it just for gay people?

Well I display myself as a frank sort of bloke who understands how banter works. Regardless of if someone said that sort of stuff to me and meant it or if it was just some ploy to test the waters that is one hell of a bad first impression.

"You're fat and you don't interest me."

"Okay, but that was seriously rude."

"I was just joking, I think you're hot now have my babies."

"What? No!"

Even if that is a tactic that women pull this girl is outright terrible at it because that's not a joke or anything that is her outright saying someone's fat. Shit's an insult. If the idea is to poke fun at someone then you go at it with some level of nuance and don't just trainwreck into someone's private messages and dump shade all over them. Shit's rude.

Either way, I don't suppose it applies to me but hey, maybe in future when someone's cussing me out I'll get to think "She is so totally into me." instead of "Oh wow, what a horrid human being." before going on with the rest of my day.

Okay then...?

I don't use tinder. Isn't it just for gay people?

I'm not really picky with my stuff but i don't really care for an artist if he's doing it to be lazy

*shrug* I get what I can get and don't really trouble myself unduly over it. But I tell you what pisses me off, finding someone who does fantastic artwork for like 3/5 characters from a series and doesn't do all of them.

But still, he puts a lot of effort into his work

Effort, yeah, but I like clean art and his art is very fuzzy with hair all over the place. I don't actually find the animal aspects of furries to be all that sexy and I don't really focus on them, but his work tends to emphasise those elements more than I appreciate.

>>#56,

I think adam wan is a great artist

Eh, a lot of his work is just a bit too furry for me.

But still, he puts a lot of effort into his work

Effort, yeah, but I like clean art and his art is very fuzzy with hair all over the place. I don't actually find the animal aspects of furries to be all that sexy and I don't really focus on them, but his work tends to emphasise those elements more than I appreciate.

I mean like to the point where it's just the same picture just like with slight changes or different people, no different situation or anything

Eh, I don't mind that. Multiple characters out of the same picture for minimal work.

I'm not really picky with my stuff but i don't really care for an artist if he's doing it to be lazy

*shrug* I get what I can get and don't really trouble myself unduly over it. But I tell you what pisses me off, finding someone who does fantastic artwork for like 3/5 characters from a series and doesn't do all of them.

>Kerasu/Ricegnat not on the list

you fucking DISGUST me.

carrot, if you like feral
also reign 2004

Whargleblargle
jay-marvel if your into hyper
garabatoz even if most of it is SS

Sindoll
Amad no moto
Kanel
Slugbox
Madturtle


Roughly in that order for me.

They're good, but a few steps short of godlike.

I think adam wan is a great artist

Eh, a lot of his work is just a bit too furry for me.

But still, he puts a lot of effort into his work

Effort, yeah, but I like clean art and his art is very fuzzy with hair all over the place. I don't actually find the animal aspects of furries to be all that sexy and I don't really focus on them, but his work tends to emphasise those elements more than I appreciate.

oh my god yes, but i guess it'd be better than having the same old picture being posted just different cases of it.

Or the artists who post amazing stuff but they post stuff super slowly, i know way too many of those, but then there's other artists who post often and have great content

I actually prefer it when there are a lot of different variations to a picture. I got a lot of kink so it's nice to see which one works best for the pic. Shadman knows what we like. He knows we're fucked.

I mean like to the point where it's just the same picture just like with slight changes or different people, no different situation or anything

Eh, I don't mind that. Multiple characters out of the same picture for minimal work.

I'm not really picky with my stuff but i don't really care for an artist if he's doing it to be lazy

*shrug* I get what I can get and don't really trouble myself unduly over it. But I tell you what pisses me off, finding someone who does fantastic artwork for like 3/5 characters from a series and doesn't do all of them.

I have way too many godlike favorite furry artists

Aye, but I've always found furry artists to be the most temperamental artists. Like, Strype just keeps drawing bigger and bigger boobs, and Jay Naylor is really in to this cuckolding thing recently, but at the same time there's the soft/hardblush sites that just can't stop pumping out damn good content.

I think the only non-furry artists that come to my mind as being godlike are Shadman, Graevling, Vempire, and Saubedengo (or however you spell his name).

Though, I tell you what really sucks... finding art from a new godlike artist and then looking next to their nametag and it says (1). That happens way too fucking often. Great art but they're just one-offs... god damn it, why must we be tested so!

>Kerasu/Ricegnat not on the list

you fucking DISGUST me.

carrot, if you like feral
also reign 2004

Whargleblargle
jay-marvel if your into hyper
garabatoz even if most of it is SS

Sindoll
Amad no moto
Kanel
Slugbox
Madturtle


Roughly in that order for me.

They're good, but a few steps short of godlike.

I think adam wan is a great artist

Eh, a lot of his work is just a bit too furry for me.

But still, he puts a lot of effort into his work

Effort, yeah, but I like clean art and his art is very fuzzy with hair all over the place. I don't actually find the animal aspects of furries to be all that sexy and I don't really focus on them, but his work tends to emphasise those elements more than I appreciate.

oh my god yes, but i guess it'd be better than having the same old picture being posted just different cases of it.

Or the artists who post amazing stuff but they post stuff super slowly, i know way too many of those, but then there's other artists who post often and have great content

I actually prefer it when there are a lot of different variations to a picture. I got a lot of kink so it's nice to see which one works best for the pic. Shadman knows what we like. He knows we're fucked.

I mean like to the point where it's just the same picture just like with slight changes or different people, no different situation or anything

Eh, I don't mind that. Multiple characters out of the same picture for minimal work.

I'm not really picky with my stuff but i don't really care for an artist if he's doing it to be lazy

*shrug* I get what I can get and don't really trouble myself unduly over it. But I tell you what pisses me off, finding someone who does fantastic artwork for like 3/5 characters from a series and doesn't do all of them.

I've seen the uncropped version

Everyone has. Shadman is a fucking god.

I have way too many godlike favorite furry artists

Aye, but I've always found furry artists to be the most temperamental artists. Like, Strype just keeps drawing bigger and bigger boobs, and Jay Naylor is really in to this cuckolding thing recently, but at the same time there's the soft/hardblush sites that just can't stop pumping out damn good content.

I think the only non-furry artists that come to my mind as being godlike are Shadman, Graevling, Vempire, and Saubedengo (or however you spell his name).

Though, I tell you what really sucks... finding art from a new godlike artist and then looking next to their nametag and it says (1). That happens way too fucking often. Great art but they're just one-offs... god damn it, why must we be tested so!

>Kerasu/Ricegnat not on the list

you fucking DISGUST me.

carrot, if you like feral
also reign 2004

Whargleblargle
jay-marvel if your into hyper
garabatoz even if most of it is SS

Sindoll
Amad no moto
Kanel
Slugbox
Madturtle


Roughly in that order for me.

They're good, but a few steps short of godlike.

I think adam wan is a great artist

Eh, a lot of his work is just a bit too furry for me.

But still, he puts a lot of effort into his work

Effort, yeah, but I like clean art and his art is very fuzzy with hair all over the place. I don't actually find the animal aspects of furries to be all that sexy and I don't really focus on them, but his work tends to emphasise those elements more than I appreciate.

oh my god yes, but i guess it'd be better than having the same old picture being posted just different cases of it.

Or the artists who post amazing stuff but they post stuff super slowly, i know way too many of those, but then there's other artists who post often and have great content

I actually prefer it when there are a lot of different variations to a picture. I got a lot of kink so it's nice to see which one works best for the pic. Shadman knows what we like. He knows we're fucked.

I mean like to the point where it's just the same picture just like with slight changes or different people, no different situation or anything

Eh, I don't mind that. Multiple characters out of the same picture for minimal work.

I'm not really picky with my stuff but i don't really care for an artist if he's doing it to be lazy

*shrug* I get what I can get and don't really trouble myself unduly over it. But I tell you what pisses me off, finding someone who does fantastic artwork for like 3/5 characters from a series and doesn't do all of them.

Yeah, but we mock the shit out of fedora kids who think they're cool. Anyone who doesn't recognise the truth about who and what they are and either assumes or demands other people to join in the delusion is a focus of mockery.

Then she's worse at expressing her feelings than I am and she can go straight to hell, do not pass purgatory, do not collect 200 virgins.

Well I display myself as a frank sort of bloke who understands how banter works. Regardless of if someone said that sort of stuff to me and meant it or if it was just some ploy to test the waters that is one hell of a bad first impression.

"You're fat and you don't interest me."

"Okay, but that was seriously rude."

"I was just joking, I think you're hot now have my babies."

"What? No!"

Even if that is a tactic that women pull this girl is outright terrible at it because that's not a joke or anything that is her outright saying someone's fat. Shit's an insult. If the idea is to poke fun at someone then you go at it with some level of nuance and don't just trainwreck into someone's private messages and dump shade all over them. Shit's rude.

Either way, I don't suppose it applies to me but hey, maybe in future when someone's cussing me out I'll get to think "She is so totally into me." instead of "Oh wow, what a horrid human being." before going on with the rest of my day.

Okay then...?

I don't use tinder. Isn't it just for gay people?