55 réponses à ce sujet

[Bogsnot1]

How exactly does realism play into "roll indefinately"? Realism in tat case would also include "blowing chunks". Who would respect a commanding officer who not only rolled everywhere, but left their berakfast/lunch/dinner all over their squadmates boots?

Dont know about you, but rolling in a zero G environment like Legions loyalty mission would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Magnetic boots are one thing, but you epxect to have a fully magnetic combat suit as well?

[CroGamer002]

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

and my second was limiting combat to close quarters.

Ha?

What are you talking about, there is lot more close quarters combat in ME1 then in ME2.

[adam_grif]

People crouching behind cover instead of using the cover system is just going to expose the janky hit detection that the game has going on, especially with biotics (Scion shockwaves espsecially) where you can be physically 100% behind an obstacle and it still hits you. When you're "taking cover" you magically become immune to most of the gunfire, even gunfire that is actually hitting your body as long as it's coming from a forward direciton. Have you ever noticed how when you turn around to aim at a husk beside you and shepard sort of "stops being in cover" and starts taking damage from enemies that were previously doing nothing to you?



Even though ME2 was a big step up from one it's still quite unpolished and isn't on par with U2 / GoW2 for cover systems.

[Jebel Krong]

Mesina2 wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

and my second was limiting combat to close quarters.

Ha?

What are you talking about, there is lot more close quarters combat in ME1 then in ME2.

about the same actually, but that has more to do with how the engine was originally designed (gears of war's combat system) than anything.

the cover mechanics/level design have changed in me2 so that an open-stance crouch mechanic would be completely redundant - there's simply nowhere useful you could use it.

[Capeo]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Capeo wrote...
I never played ME1 (I only have a PS3) so can I ask what reason the devs gave for removing crouching?
I'd like to see that return. I'd also like them to get the cover mechanics on par with the top tier TPSs like Uncharted 2. Vaulting cover is clunky as hell. Transitioning from cover to cover is rough too. And in any shooter you should be able to switch which shoulder you're looking over. I mean, the game is primarily a third person shooter. It should be on par with the best of them.

Its an RPG with shooter elements. You want something with perfect shooter mechanics, then go play a shooter.

Oh, please.  This game is a shooter with minor RPG elements.  The only thing that makes it RPG at all is the conversation wheel.  MGS4 has far more weapon and equipment customization options and an in game economy.  Does that make Metal Gear an RPG with "shooter elements". 

When you spend 90% of the time you are actually in control of your character playing a cover-based third person shooter then the game is a cover-based third person shooter with some "RPG elements". 

So, no, you're wrong.  This game is a shooter through and through.  And I'll continue to ask for the shooting mechanics to be polished since that's how you do anything in the game.

[adam_grif]

Oh, please. This game is a shooter with minor RPG elements.

It is what it is, whatever you want to classify it as won't shift reality to make it so.

MGS4 has far more weapon and equipment customization options and an in game economy. Does that make Metal Gear an RPG with "shooter elements".

No, because that's not what RPGs are. RPGs are a broad genre but they are classified by having mechanics borrowed from traditional P&P RPGs. "Has an inventory" or "has markets" is not sufficient for a classification, but "has stat governed character progression, abilities, party based questing and character interaction" is sufficient to meet the classification, and that's why ME and ME2 are RPGs.



By your definitions we wouldn't consider Demon's Souls or Diablo 2 an RPG because "like dude all you do is spend all day swinging swords at people, only 10% of the game is other stuff." Nobody is denying that it's less like traditional RPGs, but "is much better at being a shooter than the previous game was" doesn't stop it from being an RPG. I would argue that ME1 is just as much of a shooter as ME2, it's just that the shooting was crap.

So, no, you're wrong. This game is a shooter through and through.

Nope. And I don't know what you're trying to prove by saying that, the game is what the game is.

[Element_Zero]

I beg to differ as far as it's usefulness. . . Since there is a pause for getting into and out of cover.

One of my favorite tactics as a Vangard in ME 1 was to stay just slightly back from cover and crouch behind it. When something got close I would pop up / rush, put 1-3 shotgun rounds into it, and crouch behind cover again in a zig zag format.

Ok here is something you guys may or may not realize. . . Getting shot or not shot in most shooters is more of a illiusion then you might think.

Humm how can I describe this to you. . . Ok lets talk Line Of Sight  (LOS). 0 means AI LOS is blocked, where as 5 means AI can fully see you within there LOS. In many games out there the enemy AI can see you where ever you are and shoots directly at a line that runs from the chest area on your avatar to your head (the line part is animated! + they are aiming for those hit boxes.) Now you do have a 3d 'hit box' placed upon you as well, these 'boxes' can be split up into major portions. Head, legs, arms, & chest and may have different 'armor' values with a related programed reaction to behing hit (again if the mechanic is installed.) Why did I say 5 for LOS? Well I'm incorporating it into how many 3d hit boxes they see. (At some point someday programmers could incorporate many more 3d hit boxes into characters, the limiting factor right now falls under hardware constraints. And yes some games do have a few more than 5! Something to also consider is the 'hit boxes' are being tied more and more to the graphics and are not a true box per say.)

AI in most games btw have a Point Of Aim (POA) / LOS hit ratio of about 95% or greater depending on what mechanics are placed upon them. What I'm saying is, while you have to deal with muzzle rise and bullet spread, most of the time these are not installed on the AI. And neither is ammo tracking placed on AI in most cases. This is mainly due to the computational power / memory limits of your platform, however on the other hand when they are installed on some games the AI reacts quickly enough to compensate the aiming part out (aka leading to a broken aiming mechanic and waisted programming.) Which is why AI innovation and development is soooo important especially if you want to have more human AI defining aspects, reactions, and tactics! These things improve the story by giving AI 'human' characteristics!

(Ok don't believe me? arm Miranda with a tempest and watch her shoot it. . . she can shoot off a full mag, maintain full control of the little SMG, and all the bullets go into a small tight little circle regardless of how long she holds the trigger down. Enemy AI on Jacob's loyality quest can do the same thing regardless of the fact there minds are altered and they have little to no combat training.)

Place your avatar on a flat plain and there is nothing between you and the Enemy AI you have a full POA / LOS 5. Enemy AI is going to shoot for your chest in most cases, (some programmers have set the upper difficulty levels or if you have a high DPS value to have the AI to shoot at your head. Which has in many cases been programmed with a lower armor value than the chest. . . This is not in ME 2!)

Edit: Something I forgot to define with POA. . . POA also refers to the AI's position on the map, direction they are looking and generally how they see / aim.

Put something in between you and the Enemy AI and while the LOS value might drop to lets say 0, typically the POA remains a full on 2 or higher. (The 2 represents your head / chest 'hit box'.) The cover mechanic puts your LOS at 0, unless you break it. In ME 2 since the enemy AI can still see you regardless of where you are (once activated via an switch) they will still shoot at your position if they have you targeted with a 95% or better aim. (Haven't you ever wondered why if you move behind a full size barrier from one side to the other the enemy's aim follows you reguardless if your in cover or not? If you don't believe me just goto Horizon and watch how the Praetorian shoots at you!) But since your LOS returns 0 you don't take damage. Now if you crouch behind cover, and the barriers have 3d hit boxes or incase of the ground too (reguardless of if they are invulnerable or not,) it should change your LOS return as well. Now I have played some games where the AI lacks x ray vision too, they will typically continue to shoot at the last point at which they saw your 'hit box', but ME 2's gaming engine seems to lack this.

Alright I've said enough, lol. . . While I've simplified some of the above out a bit, I hope I got the picture across somewhat. AI revolves around algorithms and logic statements and right now it is still a tad young and edgey in many games.

If your worried about disk space BTW graphics and sound make up most of it . . . The gaming engine (with the AI and other mechanics) is next usually the attributes fall in last place.

And yes I did like the way it was done in ME 1, I suspect the reason why they didn't allow access to it in ME 2 is because they were having issues (glitches) with ploting points between the enlarged bling bling graphics, hit boxes, and barrier boxes. I also suspect it was a 'time' or 'overlooked' issue, as to why these were not resolved.

(Those things scoup up processing power which is limited in some platforms! And will do so reguardless of rather or not the 'crouch' mechanic toggle was employed or not! Since your AI team can crouch the mechanic is in ME 2 already!)

Whew *wipes brow* I swear . . honestly I tried to keep the posting short!

Ugh. . . I hate to make huge postings. . Oh and something you should consider is these things vary in other games out there.

Modifié par Element_Zero, 01 février 2011 - 01:46 .

[xXSnak3Eat3rXx]

Stupidus wrote...

ME2's combat was great besides sometimes accidentally vaulting over things

THIS. Annoying as a f^ck. Especially when there were Pyros on the other side.

[Phaedon]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

They should bring it back. It makes the game more dynamic - maybee being able to just crouch behind objects, not only "take cover" would make the battlefield more alive. You could be below the enemy's line of fire but still advance forward instead of popping out and in cover from time to time.

Aka, bye bye in-game balance.

[adam_grif]

Aka, bye bye in-game balance.

Just like all those other games that enable crouching are broken and unbalanced?

[Phaedon]

adam_grif wrote...

Aka, bye bye in-game balance.

Just like all those other games that enable crouching are broken and unbalanced?

If a game has implemented exactly what Mr.Kusy has in mind, then yes.
If you crouch and stay below your enemy's line of fire, while you are able to shoot, then it's like turning easy mode on.

[Capeo]

adam_grif wrote...

Oh, please. This game is a shooter with minor RPG elements.

It is what it is, whatever you want to classify it as won't shift reality to make it so.

MGS4 has far more weapon and equipment customization options and an in game economy. Does that make Metal Gear an RPG with "shooter elements".

No, because that's not what RPGs are. RPGs are a broad genre but they are classified by having mechanics borrowed from traditional P&P RPGs. "Has an inventory" or "has markets" is not sufficient for a classification, but "has stat governed character progression, abilities, party based questing and character interaction" is sufficient to meet the classification, and that's why ME and ME2 are RPGs.

By your definitions we wouldn't consider Demon's Souls or Diablo 2 an RPG because "like dude all you do is spend all day swinging swords at people, only 10% of the game is other stuff." Nobody is denying that it's less like traditional RPGs, but "is much better at being a shooter than the previous game was" doesn't stop it from being an RPG. I would argue that ME1 is just as much of a shooter as ME2, it's just that the shooting was crap.

So, no, you're wrong. This game is a shooter through and through.

Nope. And I don't know what you're trying to prove by saying that, the game is what the game is.

You're right, the game is what the game is.  It's a game where every mission is resolved through cover based third person shooter mechanics.  Inventory management is negligable.  You have the same level of control over your squad as any squad based shooter.  In a party based RPG you control your whole party directly.  The upgrade system and classes that are directly in line with typical shooter classes.  Oh, and you spend 90% of your time shooting.  I'd say it's a shooter with RPG elements.  Either way, there's no point in arguing.  I have only one point:

When all the action in the game is resolved through cover based shooter mechanics then the more polished those mechanics are the better. 

[Element_Zero]

Phaedon wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

They should bring it back. It makes the game more dynamic - maybee being able to just crouch behind objects, not only "take cover" would make the battlefield more alive. You could be below the enemy's line of fire but still advance forward instead of popping out and in cover from time to time.

Aka, bye bye in-game balance.

Huh? Crouching in ME 1 didn't work that way and affect game balance. . . If you were in a crouch, hit the rush key you could pop up and run until you got tired. Rushing works the same way in ME 2 except you can't crouch but you still got tired. And had to wait for that cool down, which in ME 2 was hidden! Duckwalking in on enemy positions was slower than the standard jog too in ME 1.

Also cover still affected how you could shoot back at the enemy AI. . . unless someone forgot to put in a barrier box in which your bullets would just pass though stuff, so you do have to expose yourself to enemy fire. (Granted the 3rd person is a bit funky in the camera angle department too. . . but that is something everyone has to overcome to get things to work properly. Leaning out from a left side of an barrier in ME 2 seemed funky to me. . . I wonder if they fixed that or not?)

[Phaedon]

Element_Zero wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

They should bring it back. It makes the game more dynamic - maybee being able to just crouch behind objects, not only "take cover" would make the battlefield more alive. You could be below the enemy's line of fire but still advance forward instead of popping out and in cover from time to time.

Aka, bye bye in-game balance.

Huh? Crouching in ME 1 didn't work that way and affect game balance. . . If you were in a crouch, hit the rush key you could pop up and run until you got tired. Rushing works the same way in ME 2 except you can't crouch but you still got tired. And had to wait for that cool down, which in ME 2 was hidden! Duckwalking in on enemy positions was slower than the standard jog too in ME 1.

Also cover still affected how you could shoot back at the enemy AI. . . unless someone forgot to put in a barrier box in which your bullets would just pass though stuff, so you do have to expose yourself to enemy fire. (Granted the 3rd person is a bit funky in the camera angle department too. . . but that is something everyone has to overcome to get things to work properly. Leaning out from a left side of an barrier in ME 2 seemed funky to me. . . I wonder if they fixed that or not?)

Read Mr. Kusy's post again, fictional chemical element.

[Element_Zero]

Phaedon wrote...

Read Mr. Kusy's post again, fictional chemical element.

   

[Lumikki]

I do not miss crouching much at all, because it was more than annoying in ME1.



When you go behind some cover what was small, then you automaticly crouch in both games, but when you leave from cover. In ME1 you where still crouching and it required you activily get out from crouching to get normal movement back. In ME2 after, you where automatic in normal move.



So, no I don't care if it exist or not, but I would wish it would not make my gameplay experience annoying in ME3 if it's there.

[Wulfram]

I just want the ability to stay protected by cover from people over there ->

while shooting people over there <-

[Phaedon]

Lumikki wrote...

I do not miss crouching much at all, because it was more than annoying in ME1.

When you go behind some cover what was small, then you automaticly crouch in both games, but when you leave from cover. In ME1 you where still crouching and it required you activily get out from crouching to get normal movement back. In ME2 after, you where automatic in normal move.

So, no I don't care if it exist or not, but I would wish it would not make my gameplay experience annoying in ME3 if it's there.

I do not miss it either, but if done right, then it would be a nice addition to ME3.

[wizardryforever]

Honestly I don't see why everyone is so gung-ho about crouching.  I rarely if ever found a reason to crouch in ME1, and I've never run across a situation in ME2 when I thought, "Man, I wish I could crouch!"  I even frequently forgot about crouching in ME1, as the only reason to do it really was to make the sniper rifle less sucky.  Now that accuracy is determined by player skill, or fundamental properties of the weapon itself, I don't see any use at all for crouching.  That's just me.

[BassChamber]

Crouching is redundant in ME2 combat mechanics.



It is not going to come back mates, and it is not necessary at all.



In fact, once you understand how ME2 combat works, you realize it is quite well designed.

[Iwillbeback]

Lol no the problem i had with it was i never ever entered cover and only crouched

[Glorious_Leader]

Capeo wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

Oh, please. This game is a shooter with minor RPG elements.

It is what it is, whatever you want to classify it as won't shift reality to make it so.

MGS4 has far more weapon and equipment customization options and an in game economy. Does that make Metal Gear an RPG with "shooter elements".

No, because that's not what RPGs are. RPGs are a broad genre but they are classified by having mechanics borrowed from traditional P&P RPGs. "Has an inventory" or "has markets" is not sufficient for a classification, but "has stat governed character progression, abilities, party based questing and character interaction" is sufficient to meet the classification, and that's why ME and ME2 are RPGs.

By your definitions we wouldn't consider Demon's Souls or Diablo 2 an RPG because "like dude all you do is spend all day swinging swords at people, only 10% of the game is other stuff." Nobody is denying that it's less like traditional RPGs, but "is much better at being a shooter than the previous game was" doesn't stop it from being an RPG. I would argue that ME1 is just as much of a shooter as ME2, it's just that the shooting was crap.

So, no, you're wrong. This game is a shooter through and through.

Nope. And I don't know what you're trying to prove by saying that, the game is what the game is.

You're right, the game is what the game is.  It's a game where every mission is resolved through cover based third person shooter mechanics.  Inventory management is negligable.  You have the same level of control over your squad as any squad based shooter.  In a party based RPG you control your whole party directly.  The upgrade system and classes that are directly in line with typical shooter classes.  Oh, and you spend 90% of your time shooting.  I'd say it's a shooter with RPG elements.  Either way, there's no point in arguing.  I have only one point:

When all the action in the game is resolved through cover based shooter mechanics then the more polished those mechanics are the better. 

Most western rpgs are going to have action based gameplay.  Doesn't make them any less of an rpg, however.

Adam_grif, you've given the best explanation of the definition of an rpg I've ever read. 

Modifié par Glorious_Leader, 01 février 2011 - 07:26 .

[Kandid001]

There is a workaround to enable crouch in ME2, but frankly I didn't use it much simply because the game wasn't designed with crouch in mind.



I would like to see it again in ME3 out of the box, but if it won't, it's not the end of the world.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Mesina2 wrote...

TheShogunOfHarlem wrote...

and my second was limiting combat to close quarters.

Ha?

What are you talking about, there is lot more close quarters combat in ME1 then in ME2.

Heh! Not the way i played it. There were plenty of examples when there was an option to have long range engagements. Primarily the option was in side quest that were more open. I would often get into sniping/counter-sniping battles (boy do I miss enemy snipers)

You must prefer CQC to not notice the instances when the option was open to you.

[LtlMac]

You know what? I read this as "Will/should the Council Make a comeback in ME3" That would have made for a very interesting discussion...*ponders*