206 réponses à ce sujet

[Jaron Oberyn]

slimgrin wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

they should add chainsaws

and killstreaks

Not just that. K/D ratio. I wanna know how many times I've killed a person without dying. Oh and while they're at it, can we get some perks? You know like extra life? Double tap? Marathon? 

-Polite

I want a head shot counter in the bottom left of the screen. And I want to be able to catch bullets with my teeth, spit them back uzi style. RATATATATATATATAT....DEATH MUTHER F*CKERZZ, DEATHHH!!!!

I don't know, shepard has some spaces between a few of his teeth. Might not be able to catch all of them. It'd be a heavy risk......

-Polite

[slimgrin]

Schneidend wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

What i'm saying is, combat in ME2 needed more variety. I'm not alone in this opinion. The incessant duck-and-cover gameplay was widely criticized as a weak point on it's release.

There's plenty of variety. As I've illustrated there's support within the game for aggressive running and gunning.

My Vanguard and Soldier Sheps rarely sit behind cover for more than a few seconds of every battle, unless the latter is using his sniper rifle.

Sorry, I just don't agree. I've played the game 6 times, with 4 different classes, twice on insanity. I still think cover plays too large a role. It's the reason for your fragile health, the numerous waist high objects, and perhaps the heat clips as well. In the original Far Cry, you're rarely completely safe behind cover. The AI will hunt you down - like right away. I admire that game from a level design standpoint, and the AI as well. It really does do these things much better than ME2. I wish that game had been their model, not Gears of War.

Modifié par slimgrin, 31 décembre 2010 - 01:11 .

[Schneidend]

A geth hunter or krogan will be on your ass pretty quickly if all you do is sit behind cover.

Besides, you're disagreeing with a fact. I do it, sinosleep and AverageGatsby do it, lots of players "run and gun." The precedent has been set for playing the exact way you describe. That you "disagree" does not mean a whole lot.

Modifié par Schneidend, 31 décembre 2010 - 01:12 .

[slimgrin]

Schneidend wrote...

A geth hunter or krogan will be on your ass pretty quickly if all you do is sit behind cover.

Besides, you're disagreeing with a fact. I do it, sinosleep and AverageGatsby do it, lots of players "run and gun." The precedent has been set for playing the exact way you describe. That you "disagree" does not mean a whole lot.

Thats like saying the Japanese Street Fighter champ, Diago Umehara, can pretty much mop the floor with anyone, so why can't I? After all it's hypothetically possible. 

Besides, your 'variety' is contingent on me playing Vanguard. And let me say again, die-hard shooter fans and critics alike repeatedly said ME2's shooter elements were it's weak point. I'm not alone in this. I don't, however, think it needs more shooter elements per se; it needs better ones.

Modifié par slimgrin, 31 décembre 2010 - 01:31 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

slimgrin wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

What i'm saying is, combat in ME2 needed more variety. I'm not alone in this opinion. The incessant duck-and-cover gameplay was widely criticized as a weak point on it's release.

There's plenty of variety. As I've illustrated there's support within the game for aggressive running and gunning.

My Vanguard and Soldier Sheps rarely sit behind cover for more than a few seconds of every battle, unless the latter is using his sniper rifle.

Sorry, I just don't agree. I've played the game 6 times, with 4 different classes, twice on insanity. I still think cover plays too large a role. It's the reason for your fragile health, the numerous waist high objects, and perhaps the heat clips as well. In the original Far Cry, you're rarely completely safe behind cover. The AI will hunt you down - like right away. I admire that game from a level design standpoint, and the AI as well. It really does do these things much better than ME2. I wish that game had been their model, not Gears of War.

Funny thing is, wasn't Gears inspired by Far Cry? I agree, there are better games for shooting than ME. I don't play ME for the shooting, but for the roleplaying. The story. If I want pew pew I play GoW, Halo, or Cod or something. Games that specialize in it. 

-Polite

Modifié par PoliteAssasin, 31 décembre 2010 - 01:39 .

[ROD525]

slimgrin wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

What i'm saying is, combat in ME2 needed more variety. I'm not alone in this opinion. The incessant duck-and-cover gameplay was widely criticized as a weak point on it's release.

There's plenty of variety. As I've illustrated there's support within the game for aggressive running and gunning.

My Vanguard and Soldier Sheps rarely sit behind cover for more than a few seconds of every battle, unless the latter is using his sniper rifle.

Sorry, I just don't agree. I've played the game 6 times, with 4 different classes, twice on insanity. I still think cover plays too large a role. It's the reason for your fragile health, the numerous waist high objects, and perhaps the heat clips as well. In the original Far Cry, you're rarely completely safe behind cover. The AI will hunt you down - like right away. I admire that game from a level design standpoint, and the AI as well. It really does do these things much better than ME2. I wish that game had been their model, not Gears of War.

Vanguard and Sentinal were practically made for running and gunning. Tech Assault Armor darn near makes you a walking tank.

[Pacifien]

There's a class, builds and strategy forum if you want to discuss, you know, that stuff.

[jpbreon]

It depends. Certainly there is room for improvement in the battles, and these ideas are not terrible.



However, I can understand the uneasiness people have towards making anything "more shooter". I mean, the extreme examples are Halo and CoD, where you pay $60 up front and $10 each month to play the same maps over and over with a knife, M4, and a grenade. BioWare has some of the best writers in science fiction and fantasy, and the fun of the game is the story they tell.



If these kinds of ideas can be implemented without making the game nothing but killing Collectors in an area that looks like a train depot for 6 hours, then great. But if it shifts the focus to a twitcher game then I can't go along with it.

[Atmosfear3]

The title is misleading for all the naysayers. They probably read it and immediately hit reply with their rejection.



A better title would read: "ME3 needs more shooter REFINEMENT"

[GnusmasTHX]

It needs to fix what it has before adding more.

[slimgrin]

Atmosfear3 wrote...

The title is misleading for all the naysayers. They probably read it and immediately hit reply with their rejection.

A better title would read: "ME3 needs more shooter REFINEMENT"

I agree 100%. But then some wouldn't get the chance to gloat. And this thread is about gloating.

[Schneidend]

slimgrin wrote...

I agree 100%. But then some wouldn't get the chance to gloat. And this thread is about gloating.

Very true. Melee threads tend to suffer the same plight. People see the word "shooter" and flip out.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Well no, this thread is about adding more shooter elements. People will automatically see the title and say "no!" and I'll admit that it's interesting to see if people have or haven't read the original post.

The essence of the thread remains though - both GRAW and R6:V are very much shooters, though GRAW is a realistic 'one shot to the head and you die' shooter whilst R6:V is an arcade shooter. It's actually close to ME2 in a number of ways, like having two squadmates and having regenerating health.

But the point I originally made holds true - they both have elements that, ironically, make them more RPG than ME2 in some areas. These areas would of course be weapons customisation and optional stealth. I really wish I could find a video of the GRAW weapons customisation screen to show people what I'm talking about, but I don't know how to record video from in-game.

[slimgrin]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Well no, this thread is about adding more shooter elements. People will automatically see the title and say "no!" and I'll admit that it's interesting to see if people have or haven't read the original post.

The essence of the thread remains though - both GRAW and R6:V are very much shooters, though GRAW is a realistic 'one shot to the head and you die' shooter whilst R6:V is an arcade shooter. It's actually close to ME2 in a number of ways, like having two squadmates and having regenerating health.

But the point I originally made holds true - they both have elements that, ironically, make them more RPG than ME2 in some areas. These areas would of course be weapons customisation and optional stealth. I really wish I could find a video of the GRAW weapons customisation screen to show people what I'm talking about, but I don't know how to record video from in-game.

Then re-title thread as it should be. It's about customization and stealth, not some vague notion of  'shooter elements.'

[slimgrin]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Well no, this thread is about adding more shooter elements. People will automatically see the title and say "no!" and I'll admit that it's interesting to see if people have or haven't read the original post.

So you admit your'e just playing games/trolling? Pathetic. You could, of course, just say what the thread is about in your title...you know, be more specific. But that wouldn't be as fun I suppose. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 31 décembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

In one level of R6:V you can sneak across a rooftop and kill about 10 enemies without alerting them to your presence. You can't do this all the time though, but it mixes up combat a bit. Plus, would this not be the perfect style of play for the Infiltrator?

As for me highlighting that one area, I have to ask how would that affect squaddies?  Would they just sit around and twiddle their thumbs while you did that?  Would you have to have stealthy squaddies along or would they sneak with you even if they were tanks?  It sounds ripe for creating something potentially cumbersome and sporting a few minor plotholes.

Ah. In that instance, if I recall correctly (it's been a while since I played R6:V), I ordered my squaddies to 'stack up' at the door of a first-level room, whilst I climbed a ladder to the roof (second level) to engage the rest of the tangos. The squaddie angle is of course one that could make stealth difficult.

slimgrin wrote...

So you admit your'e just playing
games/trolling? Pathetic. You could, of course, just say what the thread
is about in your title...you know, be more specific. But that wouldn't
be as fun I suppose.

Okay, why the anger? My thread title is perfectly accurate - I'm suggesting that gameplay elements found in first-person shooters should be added to Mass Effect 3. I'm not seeing the problem here.

[slimgrin]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Okay, why the anger? My thread title is perfectly accurate - I'm suggesting that gameplay elements found in first-person shooters should be added to Mass Effect 3. I'm not seeing the problem here.

You're not talking about customization and stealth? Funny, that's what I got from the content of your post. If that's the content, sum it up in the title. Pretty simple: be specific, don't generalize. Any Highschool lit. teacher could tell you this.

Edit: I'm sorry. Maybe you're not in Highschool yet.

Modifié par slimgrin, 31 décembre 2010 - 04:39 .

[MyryaSzataria]

On-Subject. No. Not only no, but HELL NO. This is an RPG, not an FPS. If you wanna play an FPS, go play something else, don't con the devs into ruining the game. They've already fallen for people's whining for multiplayer, in a game where the very idea of Multiplayer doesn't fit, at all. An RPG is centered around you. One person. Singular. Numero uno. So how exactly are they going to fit in multiplayer, which is a lot of people and usually endless spawns on both sides till match end, into the game without completely breaking it. Same for Co-Op. Gee, now I can play with a buddy! Wonderful, but who's he or she going to play? One of your followers? Or a secondary Shepard? Entire bit is BS. I dumped 5 years of my life into an MMO, one Chris Priestly previously worked on,. and I watched as whiners and screamers convinced the Devs to destroy the game. Profession after profession destroyed because someone lost in PVP one too many times, meanwhile, the game was broken. More bugs than an anthill and Priestly telling everyone it was all okay, trust him, he'd fix it or it wasn't broken, it was supposed to not work. 2 "Fixes" later 75% of the game population left, and more continued to leave by the month. I do not want to see whiny snots trying to convert an RPG into an FPS succeed because people like him have no spine and want to go after the FPS demographic, even though this game is aimed somewhere else. So, politely, bug off.

[Angel-Shinkiro]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

they should add chainsaws

and killstreaks

Not just that. K/D ratio. I wanna know how many times I've killed a person without dying. Oh and while they're at it, can we get some perks? You know like extra life? Double tap? Marathon? 

-Polite

I want a head shot counter in the bottom left of the screen. And I want to be able to catch bullets with my teeth, spit them back uzi style. RATATATATATATATAT....DEATH MUTHER F*CKERZZ, DEATHHH!!!!

I don't know, shepard has some spaces between a few of his teeth. Might not be able to catch all of them. It'd be a heavy risk......

-Polite

but the priiize. Sorry I just had to do it.

[Pacifien]

If you have a problem with someone's posting style and would like to critique it in the manner of an English teacher, take your criticisms to PM.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

slimgrin wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Okay, why the anger? My thread title is perfectly accurate - I'm suggesting that gameplay elements found in first-person shooters should be added to Mass Effect 3. I'm not seeing the problem here.

You're not talking about customization and stealth? Funny, that's what I got from the content of your post. If that's the content, sum it up in the title. Pretty simple: be specific, don't generalize. Any Highschool lit. teacher could tell you this.

Edit: I'm sorry. Maybe you're not in Highschool yet.

Again, the content is summed up - they're elements of shooter games. How long is the title supposed to be? Should it be "I think Mass Effect 3 should use certain individual parts of first person shooter games, specifically weapons customisation and stealth-based gameplay"? Not sure that the forums would accept a title that long.

As Pac said as well, it goes to show that the two genres - shooter and RPG - aren't necessarily mutually-exclusive, so maybe, just maybe, people could open their eyes a bit and not have a knee-jerk reaction to people saying that either more RPG or more shooter elements should be included.

Finally, cut out the personal attacks. If you must know, I'm a PhD (Doctorate) student, so yeah, high school is kinda far behind me. If you continue with personal insults, I'll start reporting your posts. This thread is for the discussion of the potential addition of more shooter elements into ME3 that would, ideally, make the game better across all aspects. Please return to that subject.

[Angel-Shinkiro]

MyryaSzataria wrote...

On-Subject. No. Not only no, but HELL NO. This is an RPG, not an FPS. If you wanna play an FPS, go play something else, don't con the devs into ruining the game. They've already fallen for people's whining for multiplayer, in a game where the very idea of Multiplayer doesn't fit, at all. An RPG is centered around you. One person. Singular. Numero uno. So how exactly are they going to fit in multiplayer, which is a lot of people and usually endless spawns on both sides till match end, into the game without completely breaking it. Same for Co-Op. Gee, now I can play with a buddy! Wonderful, but who's he or she going to play? One of your followers? Or a secondary Shepard? Entire bit is BS. I dumped 5 years of my life into an MMO, one Chris Priestly previously worked on,. and I watched as whiners and screamers convinced the Devs to destroy the game. Profession after profession destroyed because someone lost in PVP one too many times, meanwhile, the game was broken. More bugs than an anthill and Priestly telling everyone it was all okay, trust him, he'd fix it or it wasn't broken, it was supposed to not work. 2 "Fixes" later 75% of the game population left, and more continued to leave by the month. I do not want to see whiny snots trying to convert an RPG into an FPS succeed because people like him have no spine and want to go after the FPS demographic, even though this game is aimed somewhere else. So, politely, bug off.

You didn't read the OP did you?

You probaly had to spend so much time to type your unitelligent, ignorant post that you didn't even consider to read the OP. First of all: The op ideas are from TPS not FPS, second there has been no confirmation on multiplayer in ME3 and thirdly what does being an RPG centered on you have anything to do with the OP's shooter improvements.

[slimgrin]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

How long is the title supposed to be? Should it be "I think Mass Effect 3 should use certain individual parts of first person shooter games, specifically weapons customisation and stealth-based gameplay"? Not sure that the forums would accept a title that long.

Or,  "Stealth and customization in ME3" But then, I'm no PHD.

[Pacifien]

slimgrin wrote...
Or,  "Stealth and customization in ME3" But then, I'm no PHD.

Don't worry, when people read the post, they'll figure that part out.