116 réponses à ce sujet

[Alamar2078]

I wouldn't worry about dropped weapons. I suspect that you will have as many copies of weapons as you want on the Normandy [no DRM ] so if you drop an uber weapon during a mission plenty of copies will be left on the Normandy.

I still like my idea of really making each set of weapons have a specific purpose. Then it's up to the level designers / AI guys / etc. to make sure that you have plenty of opportunities to change weapons to be more effective for the situation that you're in.

[JaegerBane]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

I gotta admit that I'm with Termo on this one. The idea of having weapons that can only be fired a few times, then require replacing sounds positively *awful*.

You don't like Heavy Weapons?

Sure I do. I don't recall having to cast them aside and find something else when I ran out of ammo for them, though, so I don't know why this is relevant.

What is horrible exactly? Switching weapons or scavenging?

In ME2 there are no weapons which suit different situation. The only limitation is range, which is only an issue with shotguns and SMGs (except the dlc stuff - GPS and Locust). Anyone who has the Mattock or Vindicator doesn't need anything else. Both ARs will annilate anyone at any range; switching to either shotgun or sniper rifle is usually going to decrease your killing speed instead of improving it.

It also is the deathblow to all HPs and SMGs - they are less powerful so why would anyone ever use them? Most weapons will be completely redundant if you can use whatever weapon indefinitely.

The Mattock is broken, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to use that as a reason to limit ammo for everything else. The Vindicator, on the other hand... while it can be used at any range, it's not really that effective when used at closer ranges. It's bursts are very restrictive and it's ammo is very limited.

As I said bozorg, I think you're approaching this from the wrong direction - your point appears to be based entirely on whether something strictly does a specific job, and anything else becomes superfluous. The ME2 system isn't really designed from the standpoint of having one weapon to do one role, or even one weapon class to cover one role - they provide different options, and taking options away simple because you might be able to get away with using a single gun doesn't really sound like a great idea. It's logically not far off from arguing there should be no classes, as at the end of the day, the Soldier can clear everything the fastest, at any range.

Why bother adding enemy weapon drops if those weapons are junk compared to the stuff Shep already has?

Variety? Options? ME3 will hardly be the first game that allowed players to pick up dropped weapons that didn't necessarily eclipse everything they're carrying.

Why give Soldiers 5 weapon slots if 4 are completely useless, or at best optional?

I think it's going off into the realms of hyperbole to brand all non-assault rifles as 'completely useless', particularly when the only assault rifle in the game the genuinely does make all other weapons redundant is broken beyond belief.

As for 'optional', you have it right there. Some players like to pick and choose what they use. Bear in mind that this is a single player game, bozorg - DPS and level times aren't necessarily what the players are concerned about.

[Alamar2078]

All this talk about picking up dropped weapons has got me all nostalgic and wanting to go back to Halo CE for a little while

[JaegerBane]

Alamar2078 wrote...

All this talk about picking up dropped weapons has got me all nostalgic and wanting to go back to Halo CE for a little while

Yeah, well, the last thing I want to see in ME3 is the veritable sea of weapons lying all over the place, like it was in CE. 

[Alamar2078]

JaegerBane wrote...

Alamar2078 wrote...

All this talk about picking up dropped weapons has got me all nostalgic and wanting to go back to Halo CE for a little while

Yeah, well, the last thing I want to see in ME3 is the veritable sea of weapons lying all over the place, like it was in CE. 

I don't want that either in ME3!!!   While I did it in Halo CE I wouldn't want to have to do the old run, throw weapon towards door, pick up other weapon, throw it, daisy chain that I  would somtimes do in Halo CE to make sure I had enough firepower handy for the next room.

As a matter of fact, with the exception of a few carefully planned missions, I don't really want to scavange for weapons at all.  I wouldn't mind picking up some tech here & there to scan/duplicate from bosses but otherwise I see Shep in a position to start out the game with very nearly the best there is.

I wouldn't mind too much scavaging a little more for ammo [ME2 ammo system was too generous on Insanity] but I don't want to turn scavaging into the new "planet scanning" / time sink for ME3.

Modifié par Alamar2078, 06 juin 2011 - 07:08 .

[Bozorgmehr]

JaegerBane wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...

You don't like Heavy Weapons?

Sure I do. I don't recall having to cast them aside and find something else when I ran out of ammo for them, though, so I don't know why this is relevant.

Well, you said: "The idea of having weapons that can only be fired a few times, then require replacing sounds positively *awful*." Obviously, you cannot drop/replace weapons during a mission in ME2, so that's irrelevant. But ME2 heavy weapons can only be fired a few times. My point is simple, if you like HW why would 'normal' weapons using the very same principle be *awful*?

The Mattock is broken, so I'm not sure it's a good idea to use that as a reason to limit ammo for everything else. The Vindicator, on the other hand... while it can be used at any range, it's not really that effective when used at closer ranges. It's bursts are very restrictive and it's ammo is very limited.

The Mattock is broken b/c you're not likely to run out of ammo (at least I didn't); the Vindicator has more ammo and I never had ammo-issues when using it either (burst fire is great to mix with melee - like a shotgun - in CQC btw). I never argued to limit ammo for everything else, but the more powerful weapons get, the less ammo they have (and/or pick up) - the same principle used with ME2 HW - is restrictive but in a good way imo.

As I said bozorg, I think you're approaching this from the wrong direction - your point appears to be based entirely on whether something strictly does a specific job, and anything else becomes superfluous. The ME2 system isn't really designed from the standpoint of having one weapon to do one role, or even one weapon class to cover one role - they provide different options, and taking options away simple because you might be able to get away with using a single gun doesn't really sound like a great idea. It's logically not far off from arguing there should be no classes, as at the end of the day, the Soldier can clear everything the fastest, at any range.

All I'm saying is that without any (significant) ammo restrictions (like in ME2), everyone is going to use the same (most powerful) weapon. With ammo restrictions picking a less powerful gun with a larger ammo capacity can still be a viable alternative - especially for classes who can carry only a few weapons. I don't understand what roles and classes have to with this (besides the number of weapon slots available to each class).

Variety? Options? ME3 will hardly be the first game that allowed players to pick up dropped weapons that didn't necessarily eclipse everything they're carrying.

Krogan use the Claymore; Geth Primes have a Revy; Pyro flame throwers; Heavies have missile launchers; maybe YMIR drop a mini-gun etc - I wouldn't call those weapons junk, and the option to pick one up - only to be used for a short time - doesn't sounds so bad to me

I think it's going off into the realms of hyperbole to brand all non-assault rifles as 'completely useless', particularly when the only assault rifle in the game the genuinely does make all other weapons redundant is broken beyond belief.

As for 'optional', you have it right there. Some players like to pick and choose what they use. Bear in mind that this is a single player game, bozorg - DPS and level times aren't necessarily what the players are concerned about.

The ME2 Mattock is basically the equivalent of the ME1 spectre AR - it outperforms all other assault rifles in everything. I believe it's fair to say that there will be very few players who are not going to use these weapons most of the time.

Some shotguns and sniper rifles can one-shot most enemies in ME2; the Cain is the only HW to OSOK. Weapons such as the Claymore, Widow and even the Revenant can outperform most heavy weapons in DPS and some in DoT (Mattock outperforms all HW except Cain) yet they are considered 'normal'. What's wrong with having 'heavy' versions of all weapon types and use ammo restrictions for balance (like ME2 heavy weapons)? - that's my point!

[Locutus_of_BORG]

So just saw the E3 demos.. no weapon drops from what I could see.

Also, weapons may have been rebalanced a bit. The demos all featured Soldier Shep with the Predator and Mattock; Pred seemed more powerful (faster RoF, very fast reload), while the Mattock seemed about the same as before. The Pred also seemed to be able to down enemies (even the big ones) faster than expected.

New Shep is faster moving and more agile, as are the squaddies. The visual effects of ARush and health damage seem to have been reduced a lot. Facial expressions seem to have been reworked... there were several awkward moments though.. like in a cutscene where Shep gets caught in his own airstrike, but his face is totally impassive to his almost killing himself.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 06 juin 2011 - 09:19 .

[Kronner]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

So just saw the E3 demos.. no weapon drops from what I could see.

Also, weapons may have been rebalanced a bit. The demos all featured Soldier Shep with the Predator and Mattock; Pred seemed more powerful (faster RoF, very fast reload), while the Mattock seemed about the same as before. The Pred also seemed to be able to down enemies (even the big ones) faster than expected.

New Shep is faster moving and more agile, as are the squaddies. The visual effects of ARush and health damage seem to have been reduced a lot.

It was apparently played on Casual, because enemies were way too weak. Also, there were only a few enemies at a time, and way too many "interactive cutscenes" IMHO. But the faster combat is definitely an improvement.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

^I'd think so too. However, even on ME2 Casual, I wouldn't expect my Pred to kill like my Mattock. The enemies were mostly unprotected, but I still counted ~5 shots to kill each, with both the Pred and Mattock.. I'm not sure whether that happens in ME2.


Oh yes.. Visually, all the places covered in the demos look along the lines of Arrival, so we should expect some significant palette changes. Also, old skool Husks have totally gone the 28 Days Later route, but were crazy squishy in the demo (probably a good thing).

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 06 juin 2011 - 09:31 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Kronner wrote...

It was apparently played on Casual, because enemies were way too weak. Also, there were only a few enemies at a time, and way too many "interactive cutscenes" IMHO. But the faster combat is definitely an improvement.

Yeah, I surely hope this isn't the improved difficulty they're talking about

I also didn't like the cutscenes; demo looked a lot like a CoD rollercoaster ride - which isn't bad per se, but I'd like bigger/larger levels with more freedom in the ways you approach battles. Demo looked claustrophobic linear

I'm not so sure about the speed though, I kinda like ME2's pace. I'm concerned the increased speed might make using powers without pausing too difficult.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

^I think I saw a bit of what they meant by this 'bigger' thing though. The demo player was pretty much just barreling through as fast as possible, but I think I could make out at least 1-2 alternate paths in each sequence, which is at least on par with what we've got now. It was also good to see that even Sodier Shep can clearly pull off stealth movement in any regular sequence now.

The 'speed' I saw came mostly in Shep & co.'s in game mobility. I'm not sure if enemies or sequences will actually move/progress any faster than they already do in Arrival.

I agree that the overall cinematic feel of ME3 seems to differ a fair bit from what I've become accustomed to in ME2. I can't quite put a finger on it yet, but I suppose time will tell.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 06 juin 2011 - 09:48 .

[Kronner]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Yeah, I surely hope this isn't the improved difficulty they're talking about

I also didn't like the cutscenes; demo looked a lot like a CoD rollercoaster ride - which isn't bad per se, but I'd like bigger/larger levels with more freedom in the ways you approach battles. Demo looked claustrophobic linear

I'm not so sure about the speed though, I kinda like ME2's pace. I'm concerned the increased speed might make using powers without pausing too difficult.

Ah, yeah, seems the pause button would be needed if this pace was kept. I'll definitely buy ME3 regardless, but it seems to me they are catering way to much to the "button = awesome crowd" and some stuff is added just because it looks "cool" (e.g. omni-blade, kinect stuff, unnaturally fast rolls and jumps etc.).

[Locutus_of_BORG]

What do you guys feel about voice commands?

[Bozorgmehr]

Yeah, the only gameplay thing that impressed me so far is the stealth thing. Sneaking around is always fun, but I don't know how the system will work. All the FO3 VATS moments look cool in a demo, but would be awful for gameplay. I will pre-order too, it looks a lot like ME2 so it can't be bad anyway

[Kronner]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

What do you guys feel about voice commands?

Gimmick I'd never use

First of all, it would probably look pretty lame to all other persons in my house (especially if I was doing a Renegade playthrough ), and then Shepard would basically repeat what I had just said. And in combat...well, nothing beats mouse + keyboard anyway.

[Bozorgmehr]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

What do you guys feel about voice commands?

Pointless. You can press a dozen buttons in the same time as using one voice command - can be fun on Casual though

[edit] in terms of gameplay I mean. During dialogue it looked weird - hearing Shep saying something different than the voice command.

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 06 juin 2011 - 09:58 .

[Locutus_of_BORG]

Kronner wrote...

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

What do you guys feel about voice commands?

Gimmick I'd never use

First of all, it would probably look pretty lame to all other persons in my house (especially if I was doing a Renegade playthrough ), and then Shepard would basically repeat what I had just said. And in combat...well, nothing beats mouse + keyboard anyway.

I dunno, they didn't show much. If they allow for complicated commands like, "Flank left" or, "Advance 20 meters" instead of just "[squaddie], move up", I might just want that for function for my PC mic. 'Q' & 'W' just aren't very expressive, lol.

But yes, I found the voice command dialogue very weird... esp. the intermingling of Mark Meer and Jesse Houston's barking voice.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 06 juin 2011 - 10:02 .

[Burnsbabe]

I'm not big on the voice commands for conversation but I could see how it might be possible for them to be a step up compared to using the power wheel. I'm moderately afraid I'd forget the name of a power! Lol.

[Alamar2078]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

What do you guys feel about voice commands?

I can see it now:

Miranda get into cover.   Miranda get into cover.  [SHOUTING] Miranda I SAID GET INTO COVER .... thump as body falls to ground.

I'll wake you up when it's over

[Locutus_of_BORG]

Alamar2078 wrote...

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

What do you guys feel about voice commands?

I can see it now:

Miranda get into cover.   Miranda get into cover.  [SHOUTING] Miranda I SAID GET INTO COVER .... thump as body falls to ground.

I'll wake you up when it's over

http://t2.gstatic.co...O43WYgOWsqA&t=1

Sheploo: Giggity- Alllrriigghht!

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 07 juin 2011 - 12:02 .

[NICKjnp]

I'll use it...that way I can map powers to my d-pad.

[PauseforEffect]

I cast my vote in for the Predator pistol as well. Sleeker, more convincing design and those extra 2 shots really make a difference in finishing off mercs clinging to life by a smidge. The Carnifex....well it came from a dead merc and I found out all too soon why. Too much constant reloading, and it looked as bulky as an electric power drill. The Phalanx was a little better though ironically the laser kept throwing my aim off. The sound was the most convincing.
Just my two, three bits....

[Alamar2078]

Burnsbabe wrote...

I'm not big on the voice commands for conversation but I could see how it might be possible for them to be a step up compared to using the power wheel. I'm moderately afraid I'd forget the name of a power! Lol.

I'm not an Elite player so I doubt I'm going to worry too much about efficiency.  I wonder if the Kinnect would be helpful in terms of IMMERSION so I don't pause to bring up the power wheel???

The video yesterday of "Liara Singularity" did its job of getting me to think if my experience would be enhanced by that .....

[JaegerBane]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...

You don't like Heavy Weapons?

Sure I do. I don't recall having to cast them aside and find something else when I ran out of ammo for them, though, so I don't know why this is relevant.

Well, you said: "The idea of having weapons that can only be fired a few times, then require replacing sounds positively *awful*." Obviously, you cannot drop/replace weapons during a mission in ME2, so that's irrelevant. But ME2 heavy weapons can only be fired a few times. My point is simple, if you like HW why would 'normal' weapons using the very same principle be *awful*?

Because I don't rely on heavy weapons to breach defences and kill enemies. They're nice to have for a bit of mayhem and devastation, not to mention the odd YMIR and gunship that turn up.... but I don't use them constantly. I'm not sure it makes much sense to assume that because heavy weapons can be fired only a few times and still work, the same must be true for your basic loadout.

The Mattock is broken b/c you're not likely to run out of ammo (at least I didn't); the Vindicator has more ammo and I never had ammo-issues when using it either (burst fire is great to mix with melee - like a shotgun - in CQC btw). I never argued to limit ammo for everything else, but the more powerful weapons get, the less ammo they have (and/or pick up) - the same principle used with ME2 HW - is restrictive but in a good way imo.

I think you're making a bad assumption that restrictions automatically equal challenge, a good thing. They can just as easily represent an annoyance that adds nothing to gameplay. This happened, to a far lesser degree, with HL2, mainly because you were forced to rely on your crap weapons because your cool weapons ran out of shots extremely quickly. It didn't do anything other than force the player to play in a certain way, which is assumed far too often in the industry to be 'fun'. ME2 already has enough of forcing the player to play a certain way, creating artificial delays and chores for the player to do just to be able to shoot just isn't going to equate to anything other than annoyance.

As for the Vindicator.... we'll have to agree to disagree here, bozorg. The Vindi's bursts do less damage than a shot from the Scimitar at about half the rate. If this is your thing, more power to you - but this isn't an advertisement to use the Vindi at close range voluntarily. There's no good reason to use it at shorter ranges unless you're *looking* to make things difficult.

 All I'm saying is that without any (significant) ammo restrictions (like in ME2), everyone is going to use the same (most powerful) weapon. With ammo restrictions picking a less powerful gun with a larger ammo capacity can still be a viable alternative - especially for classes who can carry only a few weapons. I don't understand what roles and classes have to with this (besides the number of weapon slots available to each class).

You're not going to fix this by creating chores for the player to carry out, though - you fix this by balancing the weapons. Pre-DLC ME2's weapon selection was pretty balanced, all things considered - there were legitimate reasons to pick many things and the weapon heavy classes had reasons to make any kind of combo of weapons.

Things went a bit pear-shaped when they released things like the Firepower Pack, but that's not a problem with the existing set.

Krogan use the Claymore; Geth Primes have a Revy; Pyro flame throwers; Heavies have missile launchers; maybe YMIR drop a mini-gun etc - I wouldn't call those weapons junk, and the option to pick one up - only to be used for a short time - doesn't sounds so bad to me

Right - I don't have an issue with picking stuff up, I have an issue with being *forced* to pick up junk every few shots just to be able to shoot.

The ME2 Mattock is basically the equivalent of the ME1 spectre AR - it outperforms all other assault rifles in everything. I believe it's fair to say that there will be very few players who are not going to use these weapons most of the time.

Some shotguns and sniper rifles can one-shot most enemies in ME2; the Cain is the only HW to OSOK. Weapons such as the Claymore, Widow and even the Revenant can outperform most heavy weapons in DPS and some in DoT (Mattock outperforms all HW except Cain) yet they are considered 'normal'. What's wrong with having 'heavy' versions of all weapon types and use ammo restrictions for balance (like ME2 heavy weapons)? - that's my point!

Hardly - the Spectre AR outperformed all other ARs but it didn't pack such a punch that it could reduce the mightiest enemies in the game to cinders in seconds. This is what I'm really getting at here - the Mattock was so poorly balanced it rendered half the weapons in the game redundant. That is a failing of the Mattock, not the whole weapon system.

As for the other weapons you mention, I'm afraid that this is more to do with the heavy weapons than the capabilities of the Tier 3 kit. Aside from the Arc Projector, Grenade Launcher and Cain, the heavy weapons aren't actually there to outdamage everything else. A lot of them are there to make up for lack of powers for a given situation.

I think that's the bottom line of my issue with your proposed system - you've started with the assumption that the weapons are too powerful for the amount of ammo you can carry, but a lot of the stuff you use as examples tends to lean towards being broken... or at the very least, not totally balanced. 

[JaegerBane]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

So just saw the E3 demos.. no weapon drops from what I could see.

Also, weapons may have been rebalanced a bit. The demos all featured Soldier Shep with the Predator and Mattock; Pred seemed more powerful (faster RoF, very fast reload), while the Mattock seemed about the same as before. The Pred also seemed to be able to down enemies (even the big ones) faster than expected.

I consider this to be a good thing. Having to pump a whole clip into a basic enemy to down them has never been something I've particularly enjoyed. Still, as Kronner says, this appeared to be played on Casual.

New Shep is faster moving and more agile, as are the squaddies. The visual effects of ARush and health damage seem to have been reduced a lot. Facial expressions seem to have been reworked... there were several awkward moments though.. like in a cutscene where Shep gets caught in his own airstrike, but his face is totally impassive to his almost killing himself.

I think I must have missed the issues with facial expressions, they seemed to be pretty straightforward to me. Looking forward to seeing how biotics work.

Was it just me,  or did Mordin sound a bit different? Is there a different VO for him? Or is it just because the poor old geezer is nearly panicking?