791 réponses à ce sujet

[MDT1]

Mesina2 wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...


You play the game Mass Effect; playing a game - not reading a book or watching a movie - GAMEPLAY is everything, it's the core, the heart and soul of every game. Gameplay is infinitely more important than everything else. Lore and a story are there to SUPPORT gameplay not the other way around.

In rpgs and for all players who like rpgs-->gameplay add to the story/ a way through the story,not the other way around. The reason why so many players dislike(me not included) Dragon Age 2 isnt exactly gameplay.Its the lack of atmosphere/"soul",choices and consequences compared with the first game.

Everyone who think otherwise should really play shooters.

Oh really?

So I just imagined awesome button, spawning enemies, less "sub-classes", no armor for party members, no crafting and many other gameplay relate complaints that I see every time I visit Dragon Age 2 threads?

And gameplay adds to the story? You're kidding? Are RPG's games or not?

Gameplay adds to the combat and combat only adds to the story in an rpg which should be the main focus. Thats at least how many (not all of course) rpg players see it.
But that doesn't mean you can't complain about gameplay.

Modifié par MDT1, 25 mai 2011 - 08:04 .

[Lady Olivia]

A really great quest-game tells a superb story through superb mechanics. Gameplay without story is tetris. Story without gameplay is a book. We're all here because we like them mixed good. The relative importance of these ingredients is a thing of taste, but they are both essential.

Gatt9 wrote...

Further,  and I *really* hate to say this,  the other poster is right.  It's a video game,  and Gameplay is King.  If the gameplay sucks,  no matter how great the story is,  it's just not going to get played for more than an hour.  No one wants to play something mind-numbing just to hear bits and pieces of a story every so often.

Torment.

[Lady Olivia]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

At this point, I think the best way to reconcile all the discrepancies is to say that what we see in gameplay does not necessarily translate exactly into "reality." It's more of an abstraction of sorts. Consider the galaxy map, where the Normandy can fly through stars without harm, space is 2D, and it only takes a few seconds of real time to traverse a star cluster. Does that mean all of this is true in the MEverse? No, of course not. Certain things must be simplified for the sake of gameplay. I sure as hell don't want to spend a day of real time flying in FTL, and I don't want to restart because I accidently flew too close to a sun.

Similarly, if you take a literal interpretation of the gameplay, you would conclude that heat sinks don't obey the Laws of Thermodynamics, the old weapon cooling and upgrade system completely ceased to exist in just 2 years, and Shepard's team is incompetent because they don't take enough spare thermal clips on missions and must rely on what enemies drop. All of that is, of course, nonsense.

Instead, I see the gameplay mechanic of picking up enemy drops as an abstraction for taking the time for partially-spent heat sinks to cool down, replacing used thermal clips for spares, and (occasionally) picking up enemy's spare clips, IF those enemies happen to use the new system. Again, this is all simplified into one system, because of game engine limitations.

I realize this takes a bit of mental gymnastics on the part of the player, but I think it's a much better solution that simply throwing out the lore. This isn't an ideal solution by any stretch of the imagination, but we're working with what BioWare gave us.

This. Thank you. You're a smart man.

[tonnactus]

Gatt9 wrote...


Further,  and I *really* hate to say this,  the other poster is right.  It's a video game,  and Gameplay is King.  If the gameplay sucks,  no matter how great the story is,  it's just not going to get played for more than an hour.

I played Alpha Protocol and the combat there really suck balls.And i still played it multiple times just for the story and the weight my decisions had in this game.
In Mass Effect 2 not even the vanguard charge(that is bugged) could prevent me from selling it at xbox marketplace a year ago.(only get it back for Lair of the Shadowbroker/used game)

Because the rest of the game is nothing more then some kind of tedious space pokemon.

Modifié par tonnactus, 25 mai 2011 - 09:43 .

[tonnactus]

Mesina2 wrote...

So I just imagined awesome button, spawning enemies, less "sub-classes", no armor for party members, no crafting and many other gameplay relate complaints that I see every time I visit Dragon Age 2 threads?

The specialisations are far better,the crafting is better(since when Origins have armor runes for example?),the combat animations are fluid and not clunky like in the first
and many called the witcher a better game not because the gameplay there is good...
And ,by the way,gameplay not only include combat anyway.

[Bozorgmehr]

tonnactus wrote...

In rpgs and for all players who like rpgs-->gameplay add to the story/ a way through the story,not the other way around. The reason why so many players dislike(me not included) Dragon Age 2 isnt exactly gameplay.Its the lack of atmosphere/"soul",choices and consequences compared with the first game.

You're playing a game; what's so hard to understand about that concept. A story is not a game, or is it?

Almost every game has a 'story' - Super Mario has, Mortal Combat has, Half Life has, most shooters have etc etc. Are those games considered a rpg? No, because their 'stories' have no gameplay purpose - they're only there for show. The 'story' in those games has the same function as graphics or audio effects - it makes those games more fun to play because having a cause to fight/play for and/or a world that looks great improve the complete GAMING experience.

Vena_86 wrote...

The game as a whole is important. In tetris gameplay is king. In DotA gameplay is king. But in an RPG that tries to immerse you into an alternate universe, gameplay should not contradict the other elements, or the whole structure falls apart. What is left is the gameplay ALONE, without any immersion, any reason to care for the universe and the characters within, as it is painfull obvious that you are just wasting your time with playing a game against a lifeless machine.

In every game, gameplay is king - it's why anyone PLAYS games. If you don't want to or don't like to play (games), there are hundreds of movies and books which have far better stories, richerly detailed worlds, more interesting characters etc etc.

The difference between rpgs and other games is that the 'story' is part of gameplay. The player has influence on how things will play out - again, gameplay rules supreme because the 'story' has been designed around the "choices-consequences" gameplay mechanic - not the other way around.

Can you explain what's wrong with 'contradictions'? The health regen system used in most games nowadays is a completely ridiculous concept - having your arms and legs blown off and hiding a couple seconds will get you back to new ... Does this break immersion? Or do you prefer games which treat health more seriously? Either nobody will be able to complete the first mission; or the game has to be insanely easy. Both options ruin games, that's why the health-regen system works - it limits what you can do, without making things too easy or massively frustrating.

Back on topic; the choice between unlimited ammo (cooldown system) and limited ammo (clips / heatsink system) is simple: Gameplay is what matters. Unlimited ammo reduces the amount of (different) weapons to almost zero; you'll end up with generetic weapons only (no more Widow/Mantis vs Viper; Scimitar vs Claymore; Predator vs Carnifex; no more heavy weapons). It will also make the Soldier's (and other classes) ability to carry multiple weapons redundant - everyone will use the same (most powerful) weapon only.

Limiting ammo is a powerful tool to balance weapons - that's why all shooters use this system. It allows the creation of very cool and very powerful weapons, which can only be used for a very short time (for balance). Think about the ME2 heavy weapons if you don't understand this.

tonnactus wrote...
Everyone who think otherwise should really play shooters.

Mass Effect is (part) shooter - what the hell are you doing here anyway? If you really hate shooters, you've bought the wrong game.

MDT1 wrote...

Gameplay adds to the combat and combat only adds to the story in an rpg which should be the main focus. Thats at least how many (not all of course) rpg players see it.

The main focus of every single game is gameplay; games must be fun to play - if not then it either isn't a game or a very poor one. The 'story' is part of rpg-gameplay (see above).

The guys at Rockstar have designed L.A. Noire around a gameplay mechanic - they designed an interogation-investigation-system first - reveiwed if the system was strong and fun enough to build a game around. The settings (place, time, characters, cases etc etc) are added next.

[95Headhunter]

tonnactus wrote...


I played Alpha Protocol and the combat there really suck balls.And i still played it multiple times just for the story and the weight my decisions had in this game.
In Mass Effect 2 not even the vanguard charge(that is bugged) could prevent me from selling it at xbox marketplace a year ago.(only get it back for Lair of the Shadowbroker/used game)

Because the rest of the game is nothing more then some kind of tedious space pokemon.

Then you're a more determined man than I. I loved the story, and the ambition, of Alpha Protocol. But after so many hours of horrible gameplay, mediocre voice acting, the total failure of the personality system (which essentially amounted to 'which specific kind of dick do you want to be') and the lousy payoff (or lack thereof) at the end, I couldn't take anymore, even to see the reverse of all my decisions.

I know you're not alone in thinking that story completely trumps gameplay, but I think I probably represent the majority when I say if the gameplay isn't up to scratch, it falls short as a game.

[MDT1]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

MDT1 wrote...

Gameplay adds to the combat and combat only adds to the story in an rpg which should be the main focus. Thats at least how many (not all of course) rpg players see it.

The main focus of every single game is gameplay; games must be fun to play - if not then it either isn't a game or a very poor one. The 'story' is part of rpg-gameplay (see above).

The guys at Rockstar have designed L.A. Noire around a gameplay mechanic - they designed an interogation-investigation-system first - reveiwed if the system was strong and fun enough to build a game around. The settings (place, time, characters, cases etc etc) are added next.

Ok lets say it different.
This discussion is actually not about ME overall gameplay but its shooter mechanics.
In every moment of ME that was awesome for me I was only armed with the conversation wheel.
For ME the shooting is just one of the possibilities to get to the next dialog scene or story element.
While I'm happy that combat doesn't feel like a burden to me, as it does in DA2, it will never be the main criteria I'll rate ths game for, as it wasn't in DA2!
So sure, the game must be fun to play, so overall gameplay must be fun too but the shooter mechanics are a secondary aspect.

But thats not true for everybody of course.

Modifié par MDT1, 25 mai 2011 - 10:32 .

[Bozorgmehr]

MDT1 wrote...

Ok lets say it different.
This discussion is actually not about ME overall gameplay but its shooter mechanics.
In every moment of ME that was awesome for me I was only armed with the conversation wheel.
For ME the shooting is just one of the possibilities to get to the next dialog scene or story element.
While I'm happy that combat doesn't feel like a burden to me, as it does in DA2, it will never be the main criteria I'll rate ths game for, as it wasn't in DA2!
So sure, the game must be fun to play, so overall gameplay must be fun too but the shooter mechanics are a secondary aspect.

But thats not true for everybody of course.

I think you look at it from a 'wrong' perspective Nobody claims the story, the surroundings, characters, graphics, audio etc etc aren't important. They are; but they're insignificant compared to gameplay. Watching a cutscene has nothing to do with gaming. Making decisions does. Your examples are not really related to the story an sich; you like making choices (different dialog, helping someone or not, killing someone or not etc etc) - those are gameplay decisions, the 'story' is only the tool used to 'display' the consequences of your choices later on (or to put it differently, the story is used as a gameplay mechanic).

Making choices in a dialog screen is exactly the same thing as choosing which weapons or abilities you're gonna use in combat. All these choices affect gameplay.

[MDT1]

Yes, but as I said to clarify my post this topic is about the part of the gameplay we could call "the shooter mechanics "and not overall gameplay. So when I talked about "gameplay" ment "shooter mechanics". And its a fact that shooter mechanics are secondary to me. This is a matter of taste, you simply can not "prove" me wrong there ^^

Modifié par MDT1, 25 mai 2011 - 11:30 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]iakus wrote...
???

Shipments arrive so fast Ronald Taylor and Zaeed Massani get their deliveries decades before the technology's implemented by organics.  What does UPS use in the future, DeLoreans?[/quote]
I still don't see why you ignore the fact that heatsinks are the same thing as thermal clips. The thing is, you remove heatsinks eventually, when the materials are too burned up to be efficient, whereas you drop heatsinks ASAP so that you won't stand in front of a krogan waiting for your weapon to be usable again. As you see, the only retcons exist because that's what you want them to be.

[quote]Now, I suppose we can play "let's pretend" and just ignore the sparkly icons that drop in places they can't possibly be, and scramble around collecting them, pretending we're just waiting for our weapons to cool down, or that we really brought far more clips than normal, because of course, there won't be a chance to resupply.    But isn't the point of this trilogy to tell one long, continuous story over three parts? 

I can accept that thermal clips are the new gameplay reality of the ME universe.  But I can't respect the change.  Not because of any failings on the gameplay part, but because the retcon was so clumsily limited that it makes the qunari horns change look smooth in comparison[/quote]
Yeah, this adds nothing.

You ignore all of the previous points and just restate your position. 
The only lore-breaking concept that I see here is that some genious in the 2180s would sent a team in CQB with overheating weapons.[quote]tonnactus wrote...In rpgs and for all players who like rpgs-->gameplay add to the story/ a way through the story,not the other way around. The reason why so many players dislike(me not included) Dragon Age 2 isnt exactly gameplay.Its the lack of atmosphere/"soul",choices and consequences compared with the first game.

Everyone who think otherwise should really play shooters.[/quote]
That's at least hypocritical coming from any traditional RPG fan, and especially you, but anyway, you have no point at all. You can't play the story without the gameplay. It's not something up to debate, it's a fact. Would you think that text adventures would work without having a great diversity of commands that the game accepts, and without directions (West, East, North, South)? Nope.

[quote]Jorina Leto wrote...
It is illogical, however for: 
1. Shepard to use them.[/quote]Why?[/quote]
Because: 
a) It's what the rest of the galaxy uses
It's superior technolodgy
c) Having overheatable weapons in CQB is nonsense
d) Don't bother using the "But ammo ends so easily!" argument, it's completely invalid.

[quote]Why?[/quote]
a) Militaries have switched to them, so it makes no sense for corporations to invest in something that doesn't advance technolodgically and is probably not sold anyway.
The technolodgy is better. Not only would a regular merc use 1 or 2 more thermal clips than heatsinks per mission, but s/he wouldn't have to worry about their weapon overheating.
[quote]Phaedon wrote...
The geth didn't use them in in ME1... [/quote]
Aha, so that's what the gameplay tells you, but not the story? The geth use thermal clips, for all you know, you just can't pick them up, as much as you can't pick up their weapons.

[quote]And the quarians do not have the resources to repair their ships but can change every weapon. Sure...[/quote]
Yeah, you lose a lot of credibility by not listening to what I post and repeating something invalid.

You DON'T change your weapon, you change a component which you replace per mission anyway.
They are also either marines or special forces, which makes your argument invalid, again.

[quote]Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
Let's not also ignore common sense; in reality, the very BEST solution would be a hybrid system. Thermal clips provide a backup plan in case you find yourself under heavy fire, and can't wait for your heatsink to vent. If you don't have a clip, not to worry! You can still wait for your weapon to cool down enough to shoot it again, instead of it becoming nothing more than a blunt object

But no; apparently we're supposed to believe that the races of the galaxy would embrace an age-old drawback to traditional ammo (bullets) in advanced weaponry, and weapons manufacturers wouldn't think to offer a hybridized system to bypass it. Yeah, right. 

It simply doesn't make a lick of sense. Phaedon's grasping at twigs. 
[/quote]
a) Gameplay-wise: This systems combines the worst of both worlds, I have tried it.
Story-wise: This makes no sense. ME1's heatsinks are obviously made of more resistant materials than ME2's, which means that they are more expensive. It's better to not drop thermal clips at all, if your thermal clips are extremely expensive. Not to mention that this doesn't help anyone. At all. You still have to change your heatsink, since after using it for some times it's inefficient.

Modifié par Phaedon, 25 mai 2011 - 12:03 .

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
Then why even bother with allowing the importation of save files?  It's all just a game, right?  Like continuity matters!  Or creating a  universe with its own history and lore, populated by unique personalities?  Cerberus, the Alliance, the Citadel, Reapers, it's all just names!  What does that have to do with anything?  Or dialogue options, for that matter?   You've got the gameplay, you've got everything, right? 

Let's not twist anyone's words here.

The story drives the game, but without the gameplay there is nothing to drive. That's like saying that the steering wheel is the most important component of the car.

[Clonedzero]

you know, people arguing against it, you lost. its confirmed thermal clips are making a return.
personally its the right call, it heavily improves gameplay rather than stubbornly going back. and going to thermal clips and then stopping using them would be just as awkward and weird as the transfer TO thermal clips.

they help gameplay in many ways.
1.) keeps combat fluid, so you're not sitting in one spot the entire fight every fight.
2.) balances guns. the more powerful the gun the less ammo you get for it. evens things up.
3.) supports using multiple weapons.
4.) adds a tactical level to the combat, (do i wanna use my sniper rounds right now, not knowing if i can get any pick ups in the near future or should i save them?)
5.) makes your aim actually count. having a limited number of shots means you actually have to aim. in ME1 you could just spray in their general direction without any consequences whatsoever

people freaking over the lore need to calm down. it was a very minor change that i doubt most people even realized was a change in the lore. they introduced reasoning into it (weak sure but its there), thermal clips are a canon part of the ME universe now. deal with it.

[Phaedon]

Not to mention that it doesn't go against the lore, after all.

[Jebel Krong]

Clonedzero wrote...

you know, people arguing against it, you lost. its confirmed thermal clips are making a return.
personally its the right call, it heavily improves gameplay rather than stubbornly going back. and going to thermal clips and then stopping using them would be just as awkward and weird as the transfer TO thermal clips.

they help gameplay in many ways.
1.) keeps combat fluid, so you're not sitting in one spot the entire fight every fight.
2.) balances guns. the more powerful the gun the less ammo you get for it. evens things up.
3.) supports using multiple weapons.
4.) adds a tactical level to the combat, (do i wanna use my sniper rounds right now, not knowing if i can get any pick ups in the near future or should i save them?)
5.) makes your aim actually count. having a limited number of shots means you actually have to aim. in ME1 you could just spray in their general direction without any consequences whatsoever

people freaking over the lore need to calm down. it was a very minor change that i doubt most people even realized was a change in the lore. they introduced reasoning into it (weak sure but its there), thermal clips are a canon part of the ME universe now. deal with it.

1. if you did that at all you weren't playing properly anyway (though could be forgiven given ME1's generally awful cover system and combat mechanics).
2. some classes are more reliant on certain types of guns than others - penalising playstyle much? not to mention immersion-breaking and annoying.
3. same as 2.
4. as opposed to actually making combat tactical by having a bigger variety of enemies? or different tactics to defeat certain ones?
5. your aim counted even in ME1, just to a lesser degree. i can get all headshots, every time and still run out of widow ammo in several ME2 fights. stupid and illogical.

not to mention the immersion breaking "ammo on the floor everywhere even in places that just wouldn't have it" - like the collector ship or the reaper, or the collector base, or UNC worlds etc. just as stupid as putting a fuel mechanics in and then having to have magical refuelling stations in uncharted sustems.

[Clonedzero]

Jebel Krong wrote...

1. if you did that at all you weren't playing properly anyway (though could be forgiven given ME1's generally awful cover system and combat mechanics).
2. some classes are more reliant on certain types of guns than others - penalising playstyle much? not to mention immersion-breaking and annoying.
3. same as 2.
4. as opposed to actually making combat tactical by having a bigger variety of enemies? or different tactics to defeat certain ones?
5. your aim counted even in ME1, just to a lesser degree. i can get all headshots, every time and still run out of widow ammo in several ME2 fights. stupid and illogical.

not to mention the immersion breaking "ammo on the floor everywhere even in places that just wouldn't have it" - like the collector ship or the reaper, or the collector base, or UNC worlds etc. just as stupid as putting a fuel mechanics in and then having to have magical refuelling stations in uncharted sustems.

1.) yes. in ME1. in ME2 with ME1's ammo system you'd just sit on one spot everyfight easily. or you could at least. thats stupid.
2.) i find having unlimited ammo and being able to shoot forever nonstop more immersion breaking and annoying. sure its "supported" by the game lore, doesnt make it any less silly and goofy feeling. an infiltrator and vanguard are more than "sniper rifle class" and "shotgun class" if you cant see that then you're playing the class wrong. locking yourself into one VERY SPECIFIC playstyle makes the game bland and boring and is bad game design.
4.) yes because you cant do both right? you cant have enemies that require armor piercing weapons to support "hey i know these guys are lurking around this area i should save my sniper rounds for them" or something? what a horrible HORRIBLE argument, are you suggesting they cant make interesting enemies if they also use ammo limitations to force you to pick a weapon best suited for the situation?
5.) how is it stupid and illogical? the widow is the most powerful sniper rifle, it should be more limited in ammo. if you're always running out of ammo then you need to alter your strategy. play more tactically, prioritze your targets, play smarter. hence why ammo is GOOD. giving you the widow and going "sup sit there and pick them off one by one at your own pace" is bad game design.

[Ahriman]

Phaedon wrote...

Not to mention that it doesn't go against the lore, after all.

Jacobs's loyalty mission, geth using thermal clipses, collectors using thermal clipses, quarians using thermal clipses...

[Clonedzero]

Wizz wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Not to mention that it doesn't go against the lore, after all.

Jacobs's loyalty mission, geth using thermal clipses, collectors using thermal clipses, quarians using thermal clipses...

oh i forgot it was a video game designed to be fun

[Ahriman]

Clonedzero wrote...

Wizz wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Not to mention that it doesn't go against the lore, after all.

Jacobs's loyalty mission, geth using thermal clipses, collectors using thermal clipses, quarians using thermal clipses...

oh i forgot it was a video game designed to be fun

Not I used this lore argument first.

[Alpha-Centuri]

For alot of games, I'd rather view game play as an inspiration of lore, rather than affirmation of lore.

WoW example: You can summon a demon in the middle of Stormwind in game play. In lore, if you'd do that, you'd be killed at hand.

Jack can 1 hit several Ymir mechs in a row. In game play she dies to one easily if she's not in cover.

IMO Jacob's loyalty mission has TC's because it was a necessary evil. Some games do a great job of rectifying gameplay with lore, but its not bashing to say that ME doesn't do this as well, nor does World of warcraft.

[Jebel Krong]

Clonedzero wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

1. if you did that at all you weren't playing properly anyway (though could be forgiven given ME1's generally awful cover system and combat mechanics).
2. some classes are more reliant on certain types of guns than others - penalising playstyle much? not to mention immersion-breaking and annoying.
3. same as 2.
4. as opposed to actually making combat tactical by having a bigger variety of enemies? or different tactics to defeat certain ones?
5. your aim counted even in ME1, just to a lesser degree. i can get all headshots, every time and still run out of widow ammo in several ME2 fights. stupid and illogical.

not to mention the immersion breaking "ammo on the floor everywhere even in places that just wouldn't have it" - like the collector ship or the reaper, or the collector base, or UNC worlds etc. just as stupid as putting a fuel mechanics in and then having to have magical refuelling stations in uncharted sustems.

1.) yes. in ME1. in ME2 with ME1's ammo system you'd just sit on one spot everyfight easily. or you could at least. thats stupid.
2.) i find having unlimited ammo and being able to shoot forever nonstop more immersion breaking and annoying. sure its "supported" by the game lore, doesnt make it any less silly and goofy feeling. an infiltrator and vanguard are more than "sniper rifle class" and "shotgun class" if you cant see that then you're playing the class wrong. locking yourself into one VERY SPECIFIC playstyle makes the game bland and boring and is bad game design.
4.) yes because you cant do both right? you cant have enemies that require armor piercing weapons to support "hey i know these guys are lurking around this area i should save my sniper rounds for them" or something? what a horrible HORRIBLE argument, are you suggesting they cant make interesting enemies if they also use ammo limitations to force you to pick a weapon best suited for the situation?
5.) how is it stupid and illogical? the widow is the most powerful sniper rifle, it should be more limited in ammo. if you're always running out of ammo then you need to alter your strategy. play more tactically, prioritze your targets, play smarter. hence why ammo is GOOD. giving you the widow and going "sup sit there and pick them off one by one at your own pace" is bad game design.

1. you can do that anyway with either game, but that's the players fault, not the game's.
2. ME1 depended on the setup, i preferred accurate burst-firing, personally, made the firefights more intense. doesn't make ME2's system any better - if i want to play a primarily sniping infiltrator, then i shouldn't be forced to go close-range in every fight when i run out of ammo, especially if the skill-tree doesn't support dual-flexibility - you have to specialise in ME2.
4. you still have to specialise, and goes back to #2 - the RPing aspect is built around customising and specialisation of your playstyle, so it should be supported, not hobbled. the ammo was there for different varieties of enemies, not the guns, so your argument falls down there. it's a terrible idea anyway - why should one weapon, used properly and situationally, be more effective than another against different enemies? (excluding heavy weapons because they work fundamentally differently). again ammo is the differentiator, not the guns as they are class-assigned for the class playstyle.
5. don't tell me how to play, i know how to prioritise etc. what is INCREDIBLY STUPID is being a specialist who then runs out of ammo towards then end of a firefight and has to resort to a back-up weapon because the game dictates that you don't go properly equipped for a mission. it's immersion-breaking, illogical and retarded. that applies to any non-soldier class btw.

[DieBySword]

the ammo system is there for making us move constanly, change weapons and make every shoot count ?!?

But most ppl dont move from one spot becuase it the safe way to go and the glass shields make it a suicide tactics to move a lot. Changing weapons because we run out of ammo is bogust, after all we have different type of protected enemies that enough. Making every shot count isnt true either if you can`t go out of cover for a sec or two and then its game over. Finally they gonna add "BLIND FIRE" in ME3 so where is the "every shoot counts" argument now,

Modifié par DieBySword, 25 mai 2011 - 02:57 .

[Jorina Leto]

Alpha-Centuri wrote...
In lore, if you'd do that, you'd be killed at hand.

And that's how it should be done.

Alpha-Centuri wrote...
Jack can 1 hit several Ymir mechs in a row. In game play she dies to one easily if she's not in cover.

Would be cool if Jack had such a power. And with a looooooooooong Cooldown id wouldn't be a balancing issue.

Alpha-Centuri wrote...
IMO Jacob's loyalty mission has TC's because it was a necessary evil. Some games do a great job of rectifying gameplay with lore, but its not bashing to say that ME doesn't do this as well, nor does World of warcraft.

It's bad game design. There is no way to jusitfy it.

[tonnactus]

Bozorgmehr wrote...


You're playing a game; what's so hard to understand about that concept. A story is not a game, or is it?

Could be,like Heavy Rain.

By the way,why people played Mass Effect then when its gameplay was so "clunky" and other shooters do that better when it came out?

If you don't want to or don't like to play (games), there are hundreds of movies and books which have far better stories,

 There arent books or movies where i could have conversation with npcs and "shape" the world,nor decide where to go and what to do/explore.

Modifié par tonnactus, 25 mai 2011 - 03:49 .

[Halo Quea]

Clonedzero wrote...

you know, people arguing against it, you lost. its confirmed thermal clips are making a return.
personally its the right call, it heavily improves gameplay rather than stubbornly going back. and going to thermal clips and then stopping using them would be just as awkward and weird as the transfer TO thermal clips.

they help gameplay in many ways.
1.) keeps combat fluid, so you're not sitting in one spot the entire fight every fight.
2.) balances guns. the more powerful the gun the less ammo you get for it. evens things up.
3.) supports using multiple weapons.
4.) adds a tactical level to the combat, (do i wanna use my sniper rounds right now, not knowing if i can get any pick ups in the near future or should i save them?)
5.) makes your aim actually count. having a limited number of shots means you actually have to aim. in ME1 you could just spray in their general direction without any consequences whatsoever

people freaking over the lore need to calm down. it was a very minor change that i doubt most people even realized was a change in the lore. they introduced reasoning into it (weak sure but its there), thermal clips are a canon part of the ME universe now. deal with it.

sounds like somebody needs to go play a shooter