211 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I also view Starcraft as fairly mindless when compared to say, Europa Universalis or Total War.

Tell Starcraft that it's mindless while you're working out time optimization logistics for resource gathering, construction and development. Tell it that when you're working out optimal versitile unit combinations for assaults, retreats, defenses and sustainability, and plotting a production curve based unit's costs, strengths and weaknesses. And then changing that curve in real time as battlefield conditions change mid-game.

Starcraft is about tactics and optimization. Civ is about strategy. Total War is about strategy in the open world and tactics in the batlefield. Sins is about strategy logistics and maintenance. "Strategy" games may be the most diverse in terms of what each game requires of the player. None of them are mindless.

[upsettingshorts]

maxernst wrote...
But applying that to DA2, where you start with a young Hawke and play over a 10-year period would be a bad design decision.  It only makes sense that early in Hawke's career he will not be particularly skilled.  Shepard's a peculiar RPG protagonist, in that he's a hero before the game starts.

Which is why I wouldn't argue for it in a non-twitch game with an anonymous (to start with) player character.  Shepard is, independent of any player say in the matter, a highly decorated space marine worthy of entry into the most elite special forces of the entire galaxy.  It doesn't make any sense for him not to be a crack shot.

maxernst wrote...
Oddly enough, the classic RPG skill progression actually makes more sense for some pure shooters than it does for some RPG/Shooter Hybrids.  I mean, you would think JC Denton would come pre-loaded with plenty of skills to start, whereas it would actually make sense for Morgan Gordon Freeman's ability to shoot to improve during the game.  I mean, he's a physicist, not a professional soldier.

I agree in both cases.  Lol Morgan Freeman.

the_one_54321 wrote...
None of them are mindless.

Thanks for pointing that out.  The notion that a genre or game is mindless is largely perception, not reality. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 10:38 .

[Aumata]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I mean, I get that the presentation in an RPG is part of gameplay, but I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of combat and inventory - something that ME2 definitively changed, and DA:2 doesn't appear to be doing.

Come to think of it, I'm hard-pressed to see many changes to combat gameplay between the two.

They were both pause-and-play.  They both reduced player input to target selection.  The only real difference was that in ME2 Shepard couldn't miss (the loss of stat-driven aiming is perhaps ME2's greatest failing compared to ME).

I would say that ME2 greatest failing was its plot when compared to ME.  The shooter mechanic was far better than ME, though I did miss the heat system and some of the power of biotics.

[Dave of Canada]

maxernst wrote...
whereas it would actually make sense for Morgan Freeman's ability to shoot to improve during the game.  I mean, he's a physicist, not a professional soldier.

I think you meant Gordon, not Morgan. Unless it's a joke that flew over my head.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 novembre 2010 - 10:42 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

And I think the loss of stat-driven aiming was probably ME2's greatest triumph compared to ME.  The fact my awesome, decorated space marine worthy of the Spectres from the very start of the game yet couldn't shoot was incredibly immersion killing to me.

I'm not claiming the stat-driven aiming in ME was well implemented - on the contrary, it was awful - but it somply doesn't make sense for the accuracy of a decorated space marine to be limited by the accuracy of a spazzy nerd.

Not that it would have been, as both ME and ME2 allowed you to aim while paused.  If they took that feature away, that would be a dramatic change (and likely render the game unplayable for me).

Twitch changes things.

Always for the worse, in my opinion.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Aumata wrote...

I would say that ME2 greatest failing was its plot when compared to ME. 

I don't think the plot is ever that important in an RPG.  As long as the player is able to craft and direct a character through that plot, the details of the plot don't really matter.

I think the only BioWare game with a plot good enough to make any real difference was KotOR.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Not that it would have been, as both ME and ME2 allowed you to aim while paused.  If they took that feature away, that would be a dramatic change (and likely render the game unplayable for me).

I never even actually considered that option.  I had to read about people doing it on the internet.  Especially in ME1, when there was no difference in damage between a shot to center mass or the head, so accuracy was basically moot.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Always for the worse, in my opinion.

Eh you can like shooters or not.  I do, though I took a break from the genre for years until getting back into it recently.  Still, once twitch is introduced shooter mechanics become superior simply because they've been designed around being twitch and RPG ones are not, so they aren't well suited for it.  

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...


Which is why I wouldn't argue for it in a non-twitch game with an anonymous (to start with) player character.  Shepard is, independent of any player say in the matter, a highly decorated space marine worthy of entry into the most elite special forces of the entire galaxy.  It doesn't make any sense for him not to be a crack shot.

I agree with this. Which is why my absmal aim shouldn't affect Shepard's. Yet. For some strange reason it doees.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I never even actually considered that option.  I had to read about people doing it on the internet.  Especially in ME1, when there was no difference in damage between a shot to center mass or the head, so accuracy was basically moot.

It always seemed ludicrous to me. If you want to puase and select targets whey even play a game with shooter mechanics? Why put the shooter mechanics in it to begin with? Why point-and-shoot instead of just putting in target selection like a normal (read: actual) RPG?

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...
I agree with this. Which is why my absmal aim shouldn't affect Shepard's. Yet. For some strange reason it doees.

But in ME1, your abysmal aim was compounded by Shepard's abysmal aim.

the_one_54321 wrote...
It always seemed ludicrous to me. If you want to puase and select targets whey even play a game with shooter mechanics? Why put the shooter mechanics in it to begin with? Why point-and-shoot instead of just putting in target selection like a normal (read: actual) RPG?

For people who enjoyed the story and dialog but not so much the shooter parts?  Meh, I'm not gonna get into an argument about how people should play a game, at least not on paused aiming in Mass Effect.  Just poining out that - aside from using powers - I didn't use pause for that purpose and didn't even think to.

And why not include target selection?  Because it's twitch.  Would a VATS-type system have been cool?  I could see it working.  That'd be fine, too.  I used VATS a lot in Fallout 3 because I felt the shooter mechanics were sub par.  In New Vegas they actually added iron sights and the guns feel better, so I almost never use VATS at all.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 10:59 .

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

But in ME1, your abysmal aim was compounded by Shepard's abysmal aim.

That doesn't make ME2 that much better. Plus in ME1 my absymal aim was fixed by Shepard's masterful aim later in the game.

[the_one_54321]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
I agree with this. Which is why my absmal aim shouldn't affect Shepard's. Yet. For some strange reason it doees.

But in ME1, your abysmal aim was compounded by Shepard's abysmal aim.

And many a remote control was flung through many a window.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It always seemed ludicrous to me. If you want to puase and select targets whey even play a game with shooter mechanics? Why put the shooter mechanics in it to begin with?

Because some people enjoy them.

I'll give that to the Mass Effect games.  They allowed diverse playstyles to enjoy the game.

[upsettingshorts]

Ryzaki wrote...

That doesn't make ME2 that much better. Plus in ME1 my absymal aim was fixed by Shepard's masterful aim later in the game.

That doesn't make any sense.  ME2's aim was just as accurate as Shepard's aim by the end of ME1 - unencumbered by artificial accuracy penalties.  ME2's Shepard can shoot.  As can the endgame ME1 Shepard.  The problem is that a Shepard that can't shoot makes no sense at any point in the narrative.

[Ryzaki]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

That doesn't make ME2 that much better. Plus in ME1 my absymal aim was fixed by Shepard's masterful aim later in the game.

That doesn't make any sense.  ME2's aim was just as accurate as Shepard's aim by the end of ME1 - unencumbered by artificial accuracy penalties.  ME2's Shepard can shoot.  As can the endgame ME1 Shepard.  The problem is that a Shepard that can't shoot makes no sense at any point in the narrative.

Exactly. In both games the fact that shep isn't hitting his targets make no sense. In ME1 or ME2. User error or computer error either way makes no sense.

For the game to make sense it wouldn't matter how I aimed Shep should hit the target.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 novembre 2010 - 11:01 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

That doesn't make any sense.  ME2's aim was just as accurate as Shepard's aim by the end of ME1 - unencumbered by artificial accuracy penalties.

You misunderstand.  In ME1 Shepard would - toward the end of the game - consistently hit any target that fell within the targetting reticle, even if it wasn't centred.  Shepard was a better shot at the end of ME1 because the stat-driven aiming actually corrected the player's bad aim.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ryzaki wrote...

For the game to make sense it wouldn't matter how I aimed Shep should hit the target.

Right.  We should just be able to select the target and see Shepard shoot it accurately.

This is what makes Shepard a character rather than just an avatar of the player.  His skills are relevant; he's not just a manifestation of the player's skills.

[upsettingshorts]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You misunderstand.  In ME1 Shepard would - toward the end of the game - consistently hit any target that fell within the targetting reticle, even if it wasn't centred.  Shepard was a better shot at the end of ME1 because the stat-driven aiming actually corrected the player's bad aim.

Ah I see.  Did they nerf auto-aiming in Mass Effect 2 then?  I never turned it on or even looked for it in the options, hence my ignorance.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 novembre 2010 - 11:04 .

[Fortlowe]

I wanna know if we will get a method to fence. I know this will likely make the pause and play'ers amougnst us cringe themselves into oblivion but if I can parry and block and lunge and well duel,  I will set the world record for longest squee. Fencing is absulotely not unheard of in an outstanding RPG. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (if anyone here is old enough to remember it) had possibly the best dueling mechanics outside of Soul Caliber(a fighting game), but the controls were still very simple and nonintrusive, so that instead of taking over the game, they contributed to it. I'm really excited about the twitch based combat DA is moving towards.

Also, I missed all the time on ME2 but I could basically aim in the general direction of my target and not miss him in ME1. Does that make me a freak?

Modifié par Fortlowe, 03 novembre 2010 - 11:09 .

[upsettingshorts]

Fortlowe wrote...
Also, I missed all the time on ME2 but I could basically aim in the general direction of my target and not miss him in ME1. Does that make me a freak?

It means you probably had auto-aim on high and aren't the best at playing shooters.  Nothing to be ashamed of or be labeled a freak over.

[Fortlowe]

I gotta do it Dave...

Dave of Canada wrote...

maxernst wrote...
whereas it would actually make sense for Morgan Freeman's ability to shoot to improve during the game.  I mean, he's a physicist, not a professional soldier.

I think you meant Gordon, not Morgan. Unless it's a joke that flew over my head.

Freeman: Young man I need a crowbar, some Ensure, and a gravity gun....now.

[Fortlowe]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fortlowe wrote...
Also, I missed all the time on ME2 but I could basically aim in the general direction of my target and not miss him in ME1. Does that make me a freak?

It means you probably had auto-aim on high and aren't the best at playing shooters.  Nothing to be ashamed of or be labeled a freak over.

It must be my uncontrollable attraction to Flemeth then.......

[upsettingshorts]

Fortlowe wrote...
It must be my uncontrollable attraction to Flemeth then.......

That's probably it.

[Druss99]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Mass Effect 1 dumbed down the shooter elements for the RPG crowd.

...I just love saying that, because on one hand it's true. And on the other hand it tweaks people who think that shooters are dumb.

Thats the best thing I've seen on here in ages. So true.

[Sylvius the Mad]

On PC, ME2 didn't have any auto-aim. There was none by default, and there was no option to turn it on.

I understand console ME2 did have auto-aim.