Aedan_Cousland wrote...
...No swords, war hammers, or any similar melee weapons.
This. Absolutely this. If they make ME 3 into a medieval nerdfest I will probably not buy it. Or at least I will not enjoy it near as much. I for one am sick and tired to death of futuristic universes that insist on breaking all sense of immersiona and reality to add a "swashbuckling" or "ninja" feel. It is just SO savagely disgusting and out of place.
There are games and story universes where these concepts fit like a glove. SHOOTERS (wherein the the point is the aiming and discharging of firearms) are NOT games where medieval/fantasy style combat belong. It is impossible to/poorly justified and looks completely out of place and feels completely unbelievable.
It is also worth noting that 3RD PERSON shooters are typically the weakest possible platforms for melee combat in games. That is why 3rd person shoots resort to "melee spammers" to create tension. 3rd person/cover shooters tend to be clunky and difficult to control in CQC situations. Survivability balance is also WAY off when you throw deadly melee into cover shooters, because any good cover shooter requires that you basically avoid taking ANY damage except by accident. There is a good and valid reason why the only really "difficult" enemies in ME 3 are the ones that close and beat you out of your cover - and it is because ME 3's combat game mechanics are poorly suited to melee combat.
If people want a knife slash/stab animation for melee, or a randomized kung-fu move animation (within reason, no chuck norris-ing people to insta-death) then that would be FINE. But if melee becomes a viable alternative to shooting then the game ceases to be a shooter.
Any game/universe wherein an enemy can be shot in the face 10 times while running at you with a space hammer and then kill you with said space hammer is not a game/universe that I want anything to do with. If guns were THAT crappy then everyone would just carry space hammers, and we should call it Mass of the Rings.
Retour en haut
