185 réponses à ce sujet

[Jamin101]

I keep hearing shooter fans are demanding because they forced bioware to make me2 a shooter, i may have missed when that happened because as far as i can remember me1 had combat, since its set in the future it makes sense guns are the weapon. blame the writers for shooting i guess. me1 had a good atmosphere but the combat was terrible at times, the second one is very similar with refined shooting. Now for the third they keep the improved combat and focus on the rpg aspects and me3 is the best of the series with good combat, the same awesome dialogue and better inventory or whatever makes rpg's so smart to people here.



second saying shooters are all the same means you dont play them and are just saying bs. play modern warfare 2 and then play halo. halo is a sandbox, its different every time, it requires tactics, good use of only carrying two weapons, using cover. try to take the pyramid in assualt on the control room in halo one and then play cod, its not the same experience at all. ME2 was the same way, combat requiring use of cover, powers, ammo power etc but it also had awesome dialogue and a very good plot (halo has a good one as well)



finally to end. i know online most people think they matter but they dont, in real life people like shooters and mass effect, your not forced to choose like message boards. its why expendables made money and nobody saw scott pilgrim even though the smart rpg people sterotype said it would be the bomb. its like someone else said sometimes you just want john mcclaine killing hanz gruber and sometimes you want leo dicaprio performing inception on people

[Kronner]

I never understood why anyone calls shooter mindless? How is it any different from building invincible character and then just killing everything without any problems like it is in so many RPG games. Replacing Great Sword with Even Greater Sword does not require genius mind either.

[FataliTensei]

Kronner wrote...

I never understood why anyone calls shooter mindless? How is it any different from building invincible character and then just killing everything without any problems like it is in so many RPG games. Replacing Great Sword with Even Greater Sword does not require genius mind either.

That's a pretty old RPG sterotype that's basically been fazed out by any good rpg company. Now onto shooters, unless you're playing on the most difficult setting possible you can just go auto-pilot through most of them, no real thinking required except remembering which buttons to press, which for most shooters fans is ingrained in their hands' mucle memory.

[Kronner]

FataliTensei wrote...

That's a pretty old RPG sterotype that's basically been fazed out by any good rpg company. Now onto shooters, unless you're playing on the most difficult setting possible you can just go auto-pilot through most of them, no real thinking required except remembering which buttons to press, which for most shooters fans is ingrained in their hands' mucle memory.

Well the sword was just an example. I have played A LOT of games. Various genres too.
Recently I played Torchlight, nice little game, did not take a lot of effort to beat either.
I really do not see the difference here. Maybe with game like Evochron Legends, a complex space simulator, you have to think about what to do etc., certainly not with any RPGs, very few require actual usage of tactics, and usually only against bosses. Same goes for shooters though.

Modifié par Kronner, 23 août 2010 - 09:25 .

[FataliTensei]

Kronner wrote...

FataliTensei wrote...

That's a pretty old RPG sterotype that's basically been fazed out by any good rpg company. Now onto shooters, unless you're playing on the most difficult setting possible you can just go auto-pilot through most of them, no real thinking required except remembering which buttons to press, which for most shooters fans is ingrained in their hands' mucle memory.

Well the sword was just an example. I have played A LOT of games. Various genres too.
Recently I played Torchlight, nice little game, did not take a lot of effort to beat either.
I really do not see the difference here. Maybe with game like Evochron Legends, a complex space simulator, you have to think about what to do etc., certainly not with any RPGs, very few require actual usage of tactics, and usually only against bosses. Same goes for shooters though.

Play Persona 4, that is how you do an RPG, the regular enemies will hand your but to you on a platter if you don't apply tactics. I will admit though, some RPG's don't rquire advanced tactics for regular battles. Shooters don't really require any unless you're on the hardest difficulty mode though, even with bosses (which most shooters don't do well with anyway)

EDIT: I felt ME1's enemies were better doen than ME2's. ME2 just felt like a game of popamole :/

Modifié par FataliTensei, 23 août 2010 - 09:37 .

[Kronner]

FataliTensei wrote...

Play Persona 4, that is how you do an RPG, the regular enemies will hand your but to you on a platter if you don't apply tactics. I will admit though, some RPG's don't rquire advanced tactics for regular battles. Shooters don't really require any unless you're on the hardest difficulty mode though, even with bosses (which most shooters don't do well with anyway)

Try Operation Flashpoint, it can be considered a shooter but anyone can kill you so easily that unless you use proper tactics you have no chance. As for difficulty, I think most players play on hardest setting, which is not that hard anyways.
The truth is, games are getting easier every year. Old DOOM 1 or 2 is more complex than any Call of Duty. The same goes for most RPGs, you usually start weak only to get invincible by mid game (in better case late game) and imho it does not require lot of thinking either, though I would not call it mindless. Of course there are exceptions and some games are very complex and require a lot of thinking. Unfortunately, most of these games are very old.

I like ME2 better than ME1, you are not invincible in ME2 and can die if you screw it up, something that never happened in ME1.

Modifié par Kronner, 23 août 2010 - 09:42 .

[Cra5y Pineapple]

OP is right I hate all this hate for shooters. Especially considering they are called "mindless." Shooters take more strategy than alot of RPGs. At least the good ones. Especially considering alot of RPGs rely alot more on how much you've grinded (ex. pokemon, every single MMO) than actual planning. No offense.
As for them having bad plots, bullcrap. I have many words for you, including but not limited to Halo (especially the second one), Uncharted 2, Half-Life 2 and Red Dead Redemption. Games don't need to have a billion choices and a really long campaign to have a good plot.

For the record, the only COD I liked was COD4, mainly for the stealth and that there was an actual story. I don't think Call of Duty should be taken as an example of all shooters. It doesn't really have much effort put into it considering they're worked on for a very short time. Games like Halo and Gears are worked on for years, just like Mass Effect, and have more effort put into them.

And stop using the words "run and gun." It is far more complicated that that.

[Tazzmission]

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

OP is right I hate all this hate for shooters. Especially considering they are called "mindless." Shooters take more strategy than alot of RPGs. At least the good ones. Especially considering alot of RPGs rely alot more on how much you've grinded (ex. pokemon, every single MMO) than actual planning. No offense.
As for them having bad plots, bullcrap. I have many words for you, including but not limited to Halo (especially the second one), Uncharted 2, Half-Life 2 and Red Dead Redemption. Games don't need to have a billion choices and a really long campaign to have a good plot.

For the record, the only COD I liked was COD4, mainly for the stealth and that there was an actual story. I don't think Call of Duty should be taken as an example of all shooters. It doesn't really have much effort put into it considering they're worked on for a very short time. Games like Halo and Gears are worked on for years, just like Mass Effect, and have more effort put into them.

And stop using the words "run and gun." It is far more complicated that that.

 why is it that every game has to be first person shooter? why mess up something that is fine the way it is?

Modifié par Tazzmission, 23 août 2010 - 10:55 .

[Comrade Bork]

Tazzmission wrote...

 why is it that every game has to be first person shooter? why mess up something that is fine the way it is?

I'm not the op, but seriously, way to miss the point. All you ever say is the same thing over and over again in both threads. "Not everything has to be an FPS", And while you are entitled to this opinion (and I agree for the most part), you bring it up when it isn't warranted.

[Kavadas]

FataliTensei wrote...

That's a pretty old RPG sterotype that's basically been fazed out by any good rpg company.

Avenger --> Vindicator  --> Revenant <--> Mattock <--> GPR
Predator --> Carnifex <_-> Phalanx
Shuriken --> Tempest --> Locust
Katana ---> Scimitar --> Claymore --> Eviscerator <--> GPS
Mantis --> Viper --> Incisor --> Widowmaker

I guess Bioware isn't a good RPG company then, right?

Modifié par Kavadas, 23 août 2010 - 11:20 .

[Tazzmission]

Comrade Bork wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

 why is it that every game has to be first person shooter? why mess up something that is fine the way it is?

I'm not the op, but seriously, way to miss the point. All you ever say is the same thing over and over again in both threads. "Not everything has to be an FPS", And while you are entitled to this opinion (and I agree for the most part), you bring it up when it isn't warranted.

and yet the same topics are made 50 times a day so your argument is? you give me crap for repeating but i dont see you doing a damn thing about same threads being reposted

[sevach]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

Well, shooters are often mindless, mindless in the sense that you don't have to think too much and you're mostly relying on your instincts and reflexes

I don't like the CoD series or Halo (mostly because I have issues with Activi$ion and Micro$oft and other things), but I don't think that's a bad thing. The purpose of games is to entertain, and different games provide fun in different ways. You acknowledge this but having fast reflexes is a unique skill in itself, and I don't think it's fair to disparage it as being totally mindless. I have played people who participate in professional shooter leagues and they are far, far better than people on pub servers. It takes an incredible amount of skill to reach a point where you can headshot an enemy that is moving across the screen and has only appeared a half second ago.

(Some) shooters and fighting games emphasize reflexes and speed more so than other games, but reflexes and speed are a core part of high-level play in many genres. Reflex also integrate themselves with other skills, such as making fast tactical decisions. If you watch professional tournaments for fighting and RTS games, the best players combine reflexes their with creativity.

If you wanted to play a really intelligent and strategic game, I thought of a super realistic RTS. Instead of controlling individual units, you command divisions, regiments, or battalions that appear as rectangles with a symbol and flag on a map. You'd also have to manage things like logistics (supplies for your troops) and constant scouting and reconnaissance would be essential. It would be real time, but combat would depend much more on things like position, terrain, and military tactics as opposed to micromanagement. There would be no "economy" in the traditional sense - you can only use the units you start with, though you may occasionally receive reinforcements. There is no "mining" or "production" of units.

I would probably enjoy a game like that, but a ton of people would find it super boring.

I agree with every word you said, but let me explain myself when i say "mindless", good reflexes and hand-eye coordination (aim) are mostly instinctive, you don't think about it, you just do it. That is of course an analysis at a very basic level, better games force you to think when to use each weapon, powers etc... everything you got at your disposal.

Again, my problem with ME 2 is that the roleplaying portion of the game isn't as good as i expected, improvements on the shooting part are very welcome.

[hamtyl07]

CS:S only fun when you hack the servers but just watch that you dont get VAC banned like i did but it was well worth it

[sevach]

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

And stop using the words "run and gun." It is far more complicated that that.

Actually, ME1 is a lot more run and gun than ME2, it's a pick one gun and just go with it, spam some game breaking powers, don't bother with cover, just chase your enemys type game, in ME2 you actually have to think about weapon selection, what is the best party  for this mission, best timing and place to use powers etc..

There's no doubt in my mind that the action/shooter portion of the game is much improved..

[hamtyl07]

if you want to have fun try hacking counter strike or anyother pc shooter theres notthing more statsifying than listening to little 10 yera olds cry over getting pwnd

[ArchDemonXIII]

sevach wrote...

...... let me explain myself when i say "mindless", good reflexes and hand-eye coordination (aim) are mostly instinctive, you don't think about it, you just do it. That is of course an analysis at a very basic level, better games force you to think when to use each weapon, powers etc... everything you got at your disposal.

Again, my problem with ME 2 is that the roleplaying portion of the game isn't as good as i expected, improvements on the shooting part are very welcome.

 
 Don't take this as an attack, my issue is more with your wording than with the crux of your opinion. A bad RPG is just as "mindless" as a bad shooter.

 The reason mindless is a bad descriptive is because, for the most part, it's not that shooters require less intelligence just a different application thereof. While twitch reflexes are definitely a component of shooters, there are other intricacies involved.

 Footwork: (knowing how to move to avoid being shot) if you can't stay alive long enough to get a shot, reflexes aren't going to help much.  Also includes elements like trick jumping and knowing when it is and isn't feasible. 

 Map Knowledge: This is as important to a good shooter player as knowing what enemies are affected by what elements in an RPG. On a good map, an average player can do as well or better than an experienced player who doesn't know the layout. I've scored kills by blind firing explosives into areas where people cluster, weapon spawns and chokepoints.

Psychology: Even if your aim sucks, with a little brainpower, you can make someone gleefully run into a hail of bullets. Little things, like pretending not to see someone then ambushing them when they chase for the easy kill. Abusing the 3 second rule (not in regards to dropping food on the floor, this means exploiting the humans brain's tendency to have the urge to act every 3 seconds), and all manner of feints. For example, when it occasionally comes down to melee, you can make an aggressive rush at someone, then backup and counterattack when they try  to counter your feint and leave themselves open. Can also be used to make people waste a shot with a weapon with a long refire time.

 I know most of that seems geared towards MP, but that seems to be the basis of a lot of people's argument that shooters are mindless. With a little thought, they can also be applied  to SP as well. RPGs favor a more cerebral, preplanned approach. Shooters are a more visceral, think on your feet type of game. Sure if you've played a shooter, most of that will translate ino anotther shooter, but anyone with a knack for breaking down an RPGs systems will have little trouble breaking down another RPG.

*edit* also, the guy above helps my case not in the least. :facepalm:

Modifié par ArchDemonXIII, 24 août 2010 - 12:40 .

[FataliTensei]

Kavadas wrote...

FataliTensei wrote...

That's a pretty old RPG sterotype that's basically been fazed out by any good rpg company.

Avenger --> Vindicator  --> Revenant Mattock GPR
Predator --> Carnifex Phalanx
Shuriken --> Tempest --> Locust
Katana ---> Scimitar --> Claymore --> Eviscerator GPS
Mantis --> Viper --> Incisor --> Widowmaker

I guess Bioware isn't a good RPG company then, right?

Pretty skewed chart there

[langelog]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing shooters being stereotyped as 'mindless games for retards, unlike us superior RPG gamers with all of our stats' crap. It's snobbery, pure and simple.

The only games like that I can think of are CoD 4 and CoD Modern Warfare 2 and that's because the people that always play are them are all like,"I r 1337z, look at me wit ma stopin powerz!". Call of Duty ruined everything.

I play CoD all the time with friends and I'm not a retard, I'm a gamer who enjoys a wide variety of games. I completley agree with JaegerBane, anyone who thinks that way is an ignorant, childish snob.

Modifié par langelog, 24 août 2010 - 12:54 .

[FataliTensei]

langelog wrote...

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

To be honest, I'm sick of hearing shooters being stereotyped as 'mindless games for retards, unlike us superior RPG gamers with all of our stats' crap. It's snobbery, pure and simple.

The only games like that I can think of are CoD 4 and CoD Modern Warfare 2 and that's because the people that always play are them are all like,"I r 1337z, look at me wit ma stopin powerz!". Call of Duty ruined everything.

I play CoD all the time with friends and I'm not a retard, I'm a gamer who enjoys a wide variety of games. I completley agree with JaegerBane, anyone who thinks that way is an ignorant, childish snob.

I don't think shooters are completely mindless, just not really on par with other games in the amount of intelligence you use, though above others, like guitar hero which is reflexes pure and simple.

Modifié par FataliTensei, 24 août 2010 - 01:03 .

[sevach]

ArchDemonXIII wrote...

sevach wrote...

...... let me explain myself when i say "mindless", good reflexes and hand-eye coordination (aim) are mostly instinctive, you don't think about it, you just do it. That is of course an analysis at a very basic level, better games force you to think when to use each weapon, powers etc... everything you got at your disposal.

Again, my problem with ME 2 is that the roleplaying portion of the game isn't as good as i expected, improvements on the shooting part are very welcome.

 
 Don't take this as an attack, my issue is more with your wording than with the crux of your opinion. A bad RPG is just as "mindless" as a bad shooter.

 The reason mindless is a bad descriptive is because, for the most part, it's not that shooters require less intelligence just a different application thereof. While twitch reflexes are definitely a component of shooters, there are other intricacies involved.

 Footwork: (knowing how to move to avoid being shot) if you can't stay alive long enough to get a shot, reflexes aren't going to help much.  Also includes elements like trick jumping and knowing when it is and isn't feasible. 

 Map Knowledge: This is as important to a good shooter player as knowing what enemies are affected by what elements in an RPG. On a good map, an average player can do as well or better than an experienced player who doesn't know the layout. I've scored kills by blind firing explosives into areas where people cluster, weapon spawns and chokepoints.

Psychology: Even if your aim sucks, with a little brainpower, you can make someone gleefully run into a hail of bullets. Little things, like pretending not to see someone then ambushing them when they chase for the easy kill. Abusing the 3 second rule (not in regards to dropping food on the floor, this means exploiting the humans brain's tendency to have the urge to act every 3 seconds), and all manner of feints. For example, when it occasionally comes down to melee, you can make an aggressive rush at someone, then backup and counterattack when they try  to counter your feint and leave themselves open. Can also be used to make people waste a shot with a weapon with a long refire time.

 I know most of that seems geared towards MP, but that seems to be the basis of a lot of people's argument that shooters are mindless. With a little thought, they can also be applied  to SP as well. RPGs favor a more cerebral, preplanned approach. Shooters are a more visceral, think on your feet type of game. Sure if you've played a shooter, most of that will translate ino anotther shooter, but anyone with a knack for breaking down an RPGs systems will have little trouble breaking down another RPG.

*edit* also, the guy above helps my case not in the least. :facepalm:

I can see that, overall, we pretty much agree, and i see your point that "mindless" isn't the best way to express my thoughts, and as someone else posted above us RPGs are not exactly brain surgery either, in fact, every thing is pretty much spoon fed to us to keep people from getting lost.


I still think think that the roleplay in ME2 is pretty poor, but that's besides the point...  


obs: Yeah not very helpfull

[Comrade Bork]

Tazzmission wrote...

Comrade Bork wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...

 why is it that every game has to be first person shooter? why mess up something that is fine the way it is?

I'm not the op, but seriously, way to miss the point. All you ever say is the same thing over and over again in both threads. "Not everything has to be an FPS", And while you are entitled to this opinion (and I agree for the most part), you bring it up when it isn't warranted.

and yet the same topics are made 50 times a day so your argument is? you give me crap for repeating but i dont see you doing a damn thing about same threads being reposted

I've stated my position in topics like this already, and I don't feel the need to repeat the same trite over and over again. We get it, you don't want Mass Effect to be an FPS, you only need to say that line once. And my issue with your post is that you quoted something, and then your response didn't relate to the quote at all, besides mentioning FPS. And you aren't doing a damn thing either, in fact, by posting in this thread, you only perpetuate the topics by bumping them up to the top of the board. I didn't mean to get hostile or anything, but your responses tend to end up being very forceful (imo). These topics are not made "50 times a day", there are only a few topics that people post in consistently. Just read this, think about it for a second, and if you still want to argue, I'll go ahead and do that. <3

[PHub88]

sevach wrote...

Cra5y Pineapple wrote...

And stop using the words "run and gun." It is far more complicated that that.

Actually, ME1 is a lot more run and gun than ME2, it's a pick one gun and just go with it, spam some game breaking powers, don't bother with cover, just chase your enemys type game, in ME2 you actually have to think about weapon selection, what is the best party  for this mission, best timing and place to use powers etc..

There's no doubt in my mind that the action/shooter portion of the game is much improved..

Actually you dont have to think about what weapons you use...I played on Insanity and never had to...once you get the Machine Gun there is no reason to use any other gun...unless you prefer the Pulse Rifle...which either basically become just as usefull with full upgrades....and I miss those game breaking powers...Its not that great when the game itself gives me zero incentive to ever use any power but the best one available with the group cooldown.....and as for ME1 being a "pick a gun and go with it" your obviously admitting to never playing on any remotely difficult setting....seeing as how even with Spectre guns with the top mods certain enemies still take hundreds of shots...I couldnt imagine how many shots things would take with some of the weaker guns...thousands plus I would say easily.

[PsyrenY]

Kronner wrote...

I never understood why anyone calls shooter mindless? How is it any different from building invincible character and then just killing everything without any problems like it is in so many RPG games. Replacing Great Sword with Even Greater Sword does not require genius mind either.

Agreed. I'm an RPG fan too, but we all need to get off our collective high horse.

[ArchDemonXIII]

sevach wrote...

I can see that, overall, we pretty much agree, and i see your point that "mindless" isn't the best way to express my thoughts, and as someone else posted above us RPGs are not exactly brain surgery either, in fact, every thing is pretty much spoon fed to us to keep people from getting lost.


I still think think that the roleplay in ME2 is pretty poor, but that's besides the point...  


obs: Yeah not very helpfull

To me ME is the better experience, ME2 is the better game, if you catch what I'm saying.

[sevach]

PHub88 wrote...


Actually you dont have to think about what weapons you use...I played on Insanity and never had to...once you get the Machine Gun there is no reason to use any other gun...unless you prefer the Pulse Rifle...which either basically become just as usefull with full upgrades....and I miss those game breaking powers...Its not that great when the game itself gives me zero incentive to ever use any power but the best one available with the group cooldown.....and as for ME1 being a "pick a gun and go with it" your obviously admitting to never playing on any remotely difficult setting....seeing as how even with Spectre guns with the top mods certain enemies still take hundreds of shots...I couldnt imagine how many shots things would take with some of the weaker guns...thousands plus I would say easily.

Sniper rifles are quite useful, even if you have the Revenant, that thing is quite innacurate and pretty bad at range.

You misunderstood the ME1 gun thing, there is no reason to change guns on the fly, go sniper or shotgun, just stick to your quick firing weapons, preferentially the assault rifles if you have one with enough accuracy (and it doesn't take very long to get a Spectre rifle, then it's just turn every thing to omnigel).

Archdemon- Yeah i get it...

Modifié par sevach, 24 août 2010 - 03:52 .