251 réponses à ce sujet

[SalsaDMA]

kstarler wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
And no, Spec ops does not mean you are a marksman specialist in every weapon. It means you have a physique, tactical training, weapon training to a satisfactory degree and specialized training in specific fields to suit your role in missions. There is a difference between knowing how to aim and fire a random assault rifle you pick up, and the accuracy you get by tinkering with a weapon to suit just your specs and getting intimate with it while training with it at the cost of training in other fields, like say the fields an engineer or Adept would specialize in.

Heck, even 2 snipers are not the same proficiency regardless of spending the same amount of training. Take a look at skeet shooting in winter olympics. People doing hard physical exercise, then clamping down to fire off a couple of shots quickly before moving on. These people train quite alot all of them, and yet there are sometimes pretty big differences in their capabilities, despite them all basicly being marksman specialized.

In the US military, all are trained and must qualify with assault rifles as part of their basic training. Sinosleep is a veteran of the US military and has attested to this on numerous occasions in these forums (he also served in the US campaign in Afghanistan). I also have several real life friends and relatives who can attest to this, including my father who is a retired naval veteran (after 40 years of service) and my grandfather (may he rest in peace) who was also a naval veteran and once shot a falcon with a 30/30 at over 100 yards using iron sights.

Even if this weren't true, Shepard is not just any special operative. He is a commanding officer in the Alliance fleet, and his prowess as an infantryman is great enough that his name was put forward by a Turian for candidacy in the Spectre program. He has great skill (no matter which origin you choose, Shepard's skill is why he survived), and thus should know more than just the rudimentary uses of his arsenal. Additionally, he is a veteran of multiple campaigns and combat scenarios. I think he knows how to wield an Assault Rifle, Shotgun, and/or other weapon (depending on the class) with great efficacy.

As a side note, an Infiltrator Shepard would not be known accross the galaxy among multiple species (or even likely qualified as a sniper) were he unable to hit the side of a barn with a sniper rifle (as is the case on Eden Prime in ME1). In this example, ME2 handles the reality of weapon training far better than ME1, though I admit that it is not entirely true to real life. After all, it's a game.

You said it. "In the US military, all are trained and must qualify with assault rifles as part of their basic training."
There's a difference between basic training and extra training to be marksman specialized. You can argue that the startoff point for Shepard characters weaponskills in ME1 is too low (and I would agree with you there), but claiming that all specs ops should have the same precision shooting training is a bit fallicious. I take you don't think there are specialized snipers in the US military? After all, your claim seems to be that everyone gets the same training in shooting proficency. Proficiency with precision shooting is a specialization just like specializing in knowing how electronics work (to tie in references to ME classes of soldier vs engineer)

In ME2, classes like the infiltrator or soldier don't get to showcase their strong side, that of having spent more time training with weapons than the other classes to get more intimate with them (No, ammo powers doesn't reflect time spent training perfecting their shooting). An adept or engineer that spent most of their training time on electronics or practicing mental control over biotics are just as acurate as a sniper or soldier that spent most of their time perfecting their aim. How is that in any way realistic?

A sniper or soldier should be more acurate with weapons than an engineer or adept. But they aren't. Cause the nonstat driven interface makes them only just as acurate. Basicly the training they should have had in weapons doesn't mean anything in game. Instead, to cover up the fact that Bioware basicly can't figure out how to include a proper show of how those classes specialized, they gave them stuff like 'ammo powers'... I don't want to open the can of worms that topic is by itself, but I will use it as much as to say that I don't believe 'ammo powers' is a proper substitute for the difference in acuracy someone specializing in shooting with a weapon should have over someone only training with it as part of their basic training.

[who would know]

Um...

So there was a thread on aim assist the other day. Options to disable the not-so-subtle aim assist and to adjust joystick sensitivity would be very welcome. Xbox 360 player here.

[Bozorgmehr]

wizardryforever wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

I like RTS games. BW should also adopt an isometric view of the battlefield and let me 'click' on an enemy to 'shoot' and command my squad that way. ME came close to offering full-bore real-time strategy combat, I'm also suggesting that the last few features would complete the design.

ME bears almost no resemblance to an RTS game.

Have you heard of satire?  Because this is almost exactly what you said (just a different genre), and it is just as ridiculous as your point.  You said that it didn't matter what the actual genre of the game was; you play them all like RPGs.  Now when he makes a counterpoint, you now say that it does matter what kind of game it is.  Which is it?  If it doesn't matter to you, why is it supposed to matter to him?  Why can't he play it like an RTS if he wants if you can play all manner of games like RPGs?  What makes you so special?

Tony's point isn't satire per se; RPG and RTS games have much in common. There isn't a lot of difference between building an army, maneuvering and making optimal use of each unit's strengths - and leveling up, selecting your companions, move em around the battlefield while making the most of their strengths.

Engaging the enemy with part of your forces whilst the others flank the enemy to hit em from the rear is exactly like sending in your tank to draw enemy aggro and using your rogue to hit em from behind.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The belief that ME was a hybrid seems very common, and BioWare pushes that angle a lot, but it's just not true.

ME is a hybrid. Weapons work like weapons, powers like powers. Dragon Age is a simulator, like RTS games and the Sims. You point-click and watch how your commands are executed (automatically). ME's power-system works alike, you (pause)-point-click and your character will use the selected ability on him/herself or the selected enemy. Weapons work like they do in shooters and action games, you have to aim and click. In ME2 you're rewarded for shooting accurately, in ME1 accuracy doesn't exist - some pointless stats determine whether your character is gonna hit something or not.

ME(2) is shooter in which you can use RPG ish powers; and/or ME(2) is a RPG in which you can use weapons like in shooters. You're playing two games in one. ME will never be the ultimate RPG nor the best shooter, that's the problem with hybrids. It's impossible to design the fastest AND most comfortable car. F1 cars are insanely fast, but extremely uncomfortable. Limousines are slow but very comfortable. ME is like a Aston Martin, a nice looking, comfortable and when needed pretty fast car - a good compromise IMHO.

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 12 juin 2011 - 11:13 .

[CerebraLArsenaL]

This thread ballooned while i was away, damn. As far as the people decrying those of us who are not shooter proficient, in my case (maybe not Sylvius') Im simply advocating an option so that I can enjoy ME like the rest of you, not a fundamental change in the game.

To the people with the argument "Get Gud U Suk" (paraphrase) It is impossible to do so to the level which is required to be good at shooters...aim assist is like a handrail on a stairway. Its there, when I need it, I use it, if you don't pass it by...we're still both going to get to the same place, I just needed help getting there, didnt keep you from doing it. So why is it the essence of evil to ask for it?

Edit: Birthday was the 11th, would be a nice present for the option

Modifié par CerebraLArsenaL, 12 juin 2011 - 11:46 .

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

Technically speaking,  Mass Effect is an RPG,  with some shooter elements.

I agree.

ME2 is a TPS with the faint illusion of being an RPG,  in that it has RPG screens,  but much like Oblivion they don't mean anything,  you can kill everything in the game at level 1.

I disagree.

This is common when player has biased attitude. Mock other game because it's not fully how player liked. ME2 also has RPG elements, but they are fair amount of simplifyed compared to ME1. Now like you sayed with ME1, that it has some TPS elements. When you know very well that it was minimal in ME1. Why don't you show the same respect for ME2 too, if you want to judge fairly both games.

ME2 is TPS with some RPG elements.

That's fair because ME2 has more RPG elements than ME1 ever had shooter elements.

So technically speaking,  Mass Effect was about being an RPG,  and then became about mone...err...the Shooter mechanics.  It's not hard to make a case for the change based on EA's influence,  which is very decidedly against anything not ultra mass-market.

Technically from start ME series both game has allways been combination of RPG and TPS, like hybrid. People mone ME1 TPS mechanic because it wasn't well done. Same reason why people mone ME2's RPG elements when they got too simplifyed.

As far as what you're relating to be RPG mechanics,  they're not.  Whether it's an RPG,  or an FPS,  or even an RTS or TBStrat,  they all get those things defined in code pretty much the exact same way.  RPG mechanics are Character Based Skill,  Character Progression,  Character defined independent of the Player,  and as you delve deeper into RPG mechanics,  usually mechanics related to the Role itself.

Actually we disagree here. How ever, this has been discussed many times here before in this forum and only conclusing what we have come up is that people have very different defination for RPG. Basicly in short the difference is comming, are you stat based RPG fan (numbers important) or role based RPG fan (impression important).

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 juin 2011 - 11:59 .

[78stonewobble]

This is probably what comes from mixing players with shooter backgrounds and RPG backgrounds.

I come from the former and is pretty proficient in the ingame action parts but I understand the position of the others.

The worst part of coming from a shooter to and rpg is the fact that allthough I can hit stuff pretty consistently I'm not "allowed" to.

People that come from RPG's miss the customisation(?) of characters and "depth" of battle.

Maybe the compromise could be something of allowing the shooter players to push through due to their aiming skills and cater to the RPG crowd by allowing them to tweak and customize their characters damage skills. They would need fewer hits and could take it slower because their fewer hits would be quite a bit more damaging. Maybe in the form of some combos that would be nigh impossible to pull off shooter style?

[Lumikki]

You have little point there in general. How ever, people often categorize people to friend or enemy, like if you are with me, you are friend, if agaist me, you are enemy. When in reality we are gray scale of differences with our own personal  liking. Meaning not every RPG and shooter players are same. Also there is a lot of other players who playes these games  than just shooter and RPG players.

Modifié par Lumikki, 12 juin 2011 - 07:15 .

[kstarler]

SalsaDMA wrote...

You said it. "In the US military, all are trained and must qualify with assault rifles as part of their basic training."
There's a difference between basic training and extra training to be marksman specialized. You can argue that the startoff point for Shepard characters weaponskills in ME1 is too low (and I would agree with you there), but claiming that all specs ops should have the same precision shooting training is a bit fallicious. I take you don't think there are specialized snipers in the US military? After all, your claim seems to be that everyone gets the same training in shooting proficency. Proficiency with precision shooting is a specialization just like specializing in knowing how electronics work (to tie in references to ME classes of soldier vs engineer)

That's a straw man argument, and one that I haven't made. I won't defend your supposition of my position, because you are completely incorrect in your assumption. I recognize that there is a difference between weapon training and weapon specilization, and that specilization is represented in the ME series based on the class that is chosen.

SalsaDMA wrote...

In ME2, classes like the infiltrator or soldier don't get to showcase their strong side, that of having spent more time training with weapons than the other classes to get more intimate with them (No, ammo powers doesn't reflect time spent training perfecting their shooting). An adept or engineer that spent most of their training time on electronics or practicing mental control over biotics are just as acurate as a sniper or soldier that spent most of their time perfecting their aim. How is that in any way realistic?

Yes they do. In ME2, Infiltrators get time dilation when using a scoped weapon, and Soldiers get Adrenaline Rush, which gives time dilation regardless of the weapon. While the other classes may be able to aim any weapon they are wielding, the time dilation allows for a much greater degree of accuracy, and only the specilized classes get it. As for the DCS weapon training in ME2, there is an abstract at play, which assumes that Shepard would not take a weapon that he were not proficient in using.

Modifié par kstarler, 12 juin 2011 - 07:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

ME is a hybrid. Weapons work like weapons, powers like powers. Dragon Age is a simulator, like RTS games and the Sims. You point-click and watch how your commands are executed (automatically). ME's power-system works alike, you (pause)-point-click and your character will use the selected ability on him/herself or the selected enemy. Weapons work like they do in shooters and action games, you have to aim and click. In ME2 you're rewarded for shooting accurately, in ME1 accuracy doesn't exist - some pointless stats determine whether your character is gonna hit something or not.

Except you can aim while paused, which is entirely unlike a shooter, and reduces player input to mere target selection - just like an RPG.

Whenever the player aims in real time in either ME game, he's wilfully handicapping himself.

That's like saying Baldur's Gate is like a RTS game because you have to command your forces and manage all of their resources in real time.  Well, you can do that, but you don't have to do that, and that's important.  Real-time gameplay isn't optional in RTS games.  But it is in BG.

So, while the player can play ME and ME2 like shooters, and in ME2 the game mostly responds to this as if it is a shooter, that's optional.  The player isn't forced to aim in real time.  There is no mandatory twitch component.

This is why I'm asking for them to complete that design.  Since there's no mandatory twitch component, why not let us use weapons the same way we use powers?  Both guns and powers can be triggered in real-time, so the game can be played like a shooter.  But only powers can triggered while paused, and I don't see why that restriction exists..

I'm not asking for anything radical here.  I'm not asking them to let us control the squadmates directly (as you could in early ME builds that were shown to the press).  I'm asking for a minor tweak to an existing featurAnd moreover, this tweak wouldn't have any affect at all on those people who want to play ME3 like a shooter.  If you want real-time gameplay, then by all means play in real time.  But ME2 offered an oddly inconsistent pause-based gameplay, and I'd like them to fix that.

[Schneidend]

The restriction probably exists, Sylvius, because it may cause conflicts with orientation of camera and character. The same movements that control the sight of the gun controls the camera as well. Making sure the "stickiness" of your ideal target selection mechanic doesn't bleed into the gameplay of those not using it is something Bioware would have to work on. There are always hazards to "lock-on" being a regular part of the game. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a perfect example. Sure, locking on is great for throwing boomerangs at distant objects when nothing else is going on, but it becomes much less useful in the middle of hectic combat when your aim is sticking to everything but the enemy you want to attack.

Long story short, it's more work than Bioware wants to deal with, and grates against the fact that they're building an action-RPG rather than the traditional sort.

[AriusTerendana]

Personally I hope they keep the combat more like ME2, refine it a bit more where needed. While I prefer ME1 in terms of story, I most definitely think ME2 had a better and more fun combat system.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Schneidend wrote...

The restriction probably exists, Sylvius, because it may cause conflicts with orientation of camera and character. The same movements that control the sight of the gun controls the camera as well. Making sure the "stickiness" of your ideal target selection mechanic doesn't bleed into the gameplay of those not using it is something Bioware would have to work on. There are always hazards to "lock-on" being a regular part of the game. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is a perfect example. Sure, locking on is great for throwing boomerangs at distant objects when nothing else is going on, but it becomes much less useful in the middle of hectic combat when your aim is sticking to everything but the enemy you want to attack.

I think a lock-on would be a bad idea in ME.  It would constrain the player's ability to fire the gun wherever he saw fit.

Again, since the game lets you aim while paused, there's no need for any other aiming assistance, because player aiming doesn't need to matter at all if the player doesn't want it to.

But I would like to see the arbitrary paused scoping limitation removed.

[CerebraLArsenaL]

Except for scoping, the current autolock isnt all that bad; it isnt even noticed by some. I think it is better as an overt option, but as i have said, removing it would make ME so much harder for me. also, as an overt option they could allow tweaking the sensitivity

[CaptainZaysh]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It doesn't make any sense for me to be the one aiming the gun.  I don't even exist within the game's reality.

By that rationale it doesn't make any sense for you to be the one choosing where Shepard walks, who he talks with, and what he says.

[Homebound]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It doesn't make any sense for me to be the one aiming the gun.

i think this sums up OP's mentality towards playing videogames.

[Xewaka]

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It doesn't make any sense for me to be the one aiming the gun.  I don't even exist within the game's reality.

By that rationale it doesn't make any sense for you to be the one choosing where Shepard walks, who he talks with, and what he says.

It makes perfect sense. You do not walk there instead of Shepard, you choose where he walks. You do not talk instead of Shepard, you choose who he talks with. You do not say the lines instead of Shepard, you choose what lines he'll say. So why, instead of choosing who will Shepard will shoot at, do I have to shoot them with my own skill? The game uses Shepard's skills under command of the player the rest of the game, why can't combat be the same?
That's the point Sylvius is making.

Modifié par Xewaka, 13 juin 2011 - 09:25 .

[SalsaDMA]

kstarler wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

You said it. "In the US military, all are trained and must qualify with assault rifles as part of their basic training."
There's a difference between basic training and extra training to be marksman specialized. You can argue that the startoff point for Shepard characters weaponskills in ME1 is too low (and I would agree with you there), but claiming that all specs ops should have the same precision shooting training is a bit fallicious. I take you don't think there are specialized snipers in the US military? After all, your claim seems to be that everyone gets the same training in shooting proficency. Proficiency with precision shooting is a specialization just like specializing in knowing how electronics work (to tie in references to ME classes of soldier vs engineer)

That's a straw man argument, and one that I haven't made. I won't defend your supposition of my position, because you are completely incorrect in your assumption. I recognize that there is a difference between weapon training and weapon specilization, and that specilization is represented in the ME series based on the class that is chosen.

SalsaDMA wrote...

In ME2, classes like the infiltrator or soldier don't get to showcase their strong side, that of having spent more time training with weapons than the other classes to get more intimate with them (No, ammo powers doesn't reflect time spent training perfecting their shooting). An adept or engineer that spent most of their training time on electronics or practicing mental control over biotics are just as acurate as a sniper or soldier that spent most of their time perfecting their aim. How is that in any way realistic?

Yes they do. In ME2, Infiltrators get time dilation when using a scoped weapon, and Soldiers get Adrenaline Rush, which gives time dilation regardless of the weapon. While the other classes may be able to aim any weapon they are wielding, the time dilation allows for a much greater degree of accuracy, and only the specilized classes get it. As for the DCS weapon training in ME2, there is an abstract at play, which assumes that Shepard would not take a weapon that he were not proficient in using.

Eh...

Adrenaline rush is not the same as specializing in shooting with a weapon. It's heigthened sense and superior reflexes. Not the same thing at all.

Infilitrator time dilation while scoping is basicly the same, and a copout from the devs because they know that they can't show the sniperclass as being the sniper class when every random joesmock that picks up a sniper rifle is just as precise with it as the sniperclass is.

In ME1 you had the option of saying: "My Shepard devotes his energy into becomming a crack shot with this weapon". In ME2 this option is gone because everyone are crack shots with every weapon. Going by the context of ME2s effect on classes, every class received the same amount of accuracy training with weapons, which is downright silly.  It gets even worse when you add the "unless he is a crack shot with the weapon, he wouldn't touch it. Even though it's clearly not an encumbrance issue to carry it, since soldierShep manages just fine to carry around an entire arsenal on his back, and the added options would increase his tactical options."

It gets even more funky when you reach the collector mission where you can get your specialization weapon (somewhat plausible) or pick a new type of weapon to use. In other words, appearantly from being a "zero" with a weapontype, Shepard becomes a "hero" with that weapontype, just by picking it up on a mission. Which begs the question: "Why the f... didn't he/she just grab one of those weapons from the Normady locker in the first place?"

Where ME1 failed, was by making the initial starting point of Shepards ability to use weapons too low. For most classes it should have given the player one or two points in each weapon skill from the start of, to show his initial training, while the soldier should have gotten several points in a weapontype of his choosing and the infiltrator several points into sniper to start with. And the class skill should have starteed with a higher base as well, to show his 'crack training' to start with.

Having too low a startoff point doesn't mean the system by itself is flawed. It just means the startoff point was too low.

[Bozorgmehr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Except you can aim while paused, which is entirely unlike a shooter, and reduces player input to mere target selection - just like an RPG.

Whenever the player aims in real time in either ME game, he's wilfully handicapping himself.

I don't see what aiming while paused has got to do with RPG - there are plenty of RPGs without this function, like there are other non-RPGs with the same feature.

Playing ME2 in real-time is 'better' than using pause all the time. Playing in real-time improves timing, arching, shooting and power usage in general. It's quite easy to get into a rhythm so you're using weapons, squad- and powers without having to watch the cooldowns; it's also a lot easier to move when enemies are reloading their weapons (they shoot - reload - shoot - reload; moving at the right time will reduce damage taken drastically).

One of the great things about ME2 gameplay is the option to play in realtime without consequences in terms of overall effectiveness. It's also a lot more exciting - constant pausing breaks immersion (for me).

That's like saying Baldur's Gate is like a RTS game because you have to command your forces and manage all of their resources in real time.  Well, you can do that, but you don't have to do that, and that's important.  Real-time gameplay isn't optional in RTS games.  But it is in BG.

You're (again) mistaken a game feature with a game genre - they have nothing to do with eachother. My favorite strategy game (series) - Total War - is a mix of real-time and turn-based strategy (like ME is a mix of RPG and shooter/action). Total War's turn-based system cannot compete with games like Civilization and Europa Universalis; it's real-time component isn't the very best RTS game around - but combined they make Total War (one of) the best strategy games out there.

You can pause Total War games whenever you want to btw, so you can have a look at the battlefield, call in reinforcements, issue commands to all your units etc.

So, while the player can play ME and ME2 like shooters, and in ME2 the game mostly responds to this as if it is a shooter, that's optional.  The player isn't forced to aim in real time.  There is no mandatory twitch component.

This is why I'm asking for them to complete that design.  Since there's no mandatory twitch component, why not let us use weapons the same way we use powers?  Both guns and powers can be triggered in real-time, so the game can be played like a shooter.  But only powers can triggered while paused, and I don't see why that restriction exists..

I'm not asking for anything radical here.  I'm not asking them to let us control the squadmates directly (as you could in early ME builds that were shown to the press).  I'm asking for a minor tweak to an existing featurAnd moreover, this tweak wouldn't have any affect at all on those people who want to play ME3 like a shooter.  If you want real-time gameplay, then by all means play in real time.  But ME2 offered an oddly inconsistent pause-based gameplay, and I'd like them to fix that.

You can play ME like a shooter and like a RPG - both ways result in poor combat performance. The whole point of ME is to combine both features. It's the concept that lies at the heart of this game series.

You're asking for the most radical thing here (impossible would be a better word). ME is not meant to be played like only a shooter, nor only a RPG; the goal of the team developing ME is to combine both features into one game. Which, by definition, results in a compromise. You're asking to disband the core principle of the ME series - that's not an option.

What does controlling squadmates add to the game? You can already use all their abilities, and they use the same weapons as Shepard - it adds nothing except frustration due to poor AI behavior (Shep dead = game over). ME is supposed to be played like a shooter/action game; if you don't like that, don't buy / play ME.

[AlexRmF]

this is a very good topic about the mix of action and RPG elements and their amount in the ME games.
I enjoyed the first game very much and I also liked the way guns stats worked, because you actually had some major bonuses for increasing your guns proficiency (carnage, marksman, overkill) which brought both RPG and action elements into the mix, this way, you could feel your Shepard becoming stronger as he became more experienced, I saw a lot of whining about Shepard being an N7 operative that should be a gun-wielding god, which doesn't make sense because you start at level 1, not 10,... BUT... the first few levels will be gained immediately, which is in sync with how things in real world work - you might be the best student in school, but until you actually use that knowledge outside of the controlled environment, you're level 1... the thing that matters is that you could possibly adapt quicker than others to that outside environment, which is exactly what happens in ME1 (you and Kaidan are both N7, therefore, the best of the best, using the training experience to become very good in a short time)
I hate how ME2 is the same from start to finish... get hit 2 or 3 times without cover and you're toast... there's no tactical approach to the fights, since you can kill everyone by using just your own point&shoot skill.
the past days I replayed a mission in ME1 on insanity (Liara's recruiting mission) and I reloaded the game a lot of times because the geth snipers would kill me quickly since my Shepard was a low level soldier. this couldn't happen in ME2, where I could just engage the hardest mission in the game and shoot everyone using stock equipment and a level 5 shepard.
My point is... it's normal to have stats for guns and I like it better than the ME2 model where your character is almost the same from start to finish, the only thing that makes a difference is the weapon upgrades, not Shepard's skill, which plays like a retarded marine that can't improve his condition, despite being the best of the best.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xewaka wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It doesn't make any sense for me to be the one aiming the gun.  I don't even exist within the game's reality.

By that rationale it doesn't make any sense for you to be the one choosing where Shepard walks, who he talks with, and what he says.

It makes perfect sense. You do not walk there instead of Shepard, you choose where he walks. You do not talk instead of Shepard, you choose who he talks with. You do not say the lines instead of Shepard, you choose what lines he'll say. So why, instead of choosing who will Shepard will shoot at, do I have to shoot them with my own skill? The game uses Shepard's skills under command of the player the rest of the game, why can't combat be the same?

Exactly.

Bozorgmehr wrote...

I don't see what aiming while paused has got to do with RPG - there are plenty of RPGs without this function, like there are other non-RPGs with the same feature.

The point is that shooter combat requires that the player aim in real time.  ME does not require that, therefore its combat does not meaningfully resemble shooter combat.

As such, basing arguments on ME being a shooter is an error.  ME clearly is not a shooter.  ME was never a shooter.  Perhaps ME would have been btter for some people if it had been a shooter, and certainly ME2 can be played as if it is a shooter, but overall the ME games are not shooters.

Playing ME2 in real-time is 'better' than using pause all the time. Playing in real-time improves timing, arching, shooting and power usage in general. It's quite easy to get into a rhythm so you're using weapons, squad- and powers without having to watch the cooldowns; it's also a lot easier to move when enemies are reloading their weapons (they shoot - reload - shoot - reload; moving at the right time will reduce damage taken drastically).

Except, that requires that the player's skill affect Shepard's accuracy, and that makes no sense within the setting.

The player's skill at aiming shouldn't ever have to matter, which is why it is good that ME and ME2 both allow the player to aim while paused.

You're (again) mistaken a game feature with a game genre - they have nothing to do with eachother. My favorite strategy game (series) - Total War - is a mix of real-time and turn-based strategy (like ME is a mix of RPG and shooter/action). Total War's turn-based system cannot compete with games like Civilization and Europa Universalis; it's real-time component isn't the very best RTS game around - but combined they make Total War (one of) the best strategy games out there.

You can pause Total War games whenever you want to btw, so you can have a look at the battlefield, call in reinforcements, issue commands to all your units etc.

I would agree that the Total War games are excellent strategy games, but I dispute that they offer many real-time features.  Since you're not required to play any of the game in real time, it's not a real-time game.

That forced real-time component is why I never play RTS games.

You can play ME like a shooter and like a RPG - both ways result in poor combat performance. The whole point of ME is to combine both features. It's the concept that lies at the heart of this game series.

You can play ME2 like a shooter, as you say.  My point here is that there's a restriction that prevents you fromm playing the entire game like an RPG, because you can only aim while paused when using some of the combat features.  You can't scope while paused.  You can't actually trigger a weapon while paused.  These are all I'm asking for (and really, all I asked in the opening post was whether we could still aim while paused - because I don't expect they would publicise the removal of that feature, given that they probably don't think it was an intended feature in the first place).

A minor tweak - let us scope while paused - would effectively complete the RPG combat approach.

You're asking for the most radical thing here (impossible would be a better word). ME is not meant to be played like only a shooter, nor only a RPG; the goal of the team developing ME is to combine both features into one game. Which, by definition, results in a compromise. You're asking to disband the core principle of the ME series - that's not an option.

The two are mutually exclusive.  Each feature of one precludes a corresponding feature of the other.  Shooter combat requires player skill.  RPG combat requires the absence of player skill.  Those are opposites.  They can't be reconciled.

What does controlling squadmates add to the game? You can already use all their abilities, and they use the same weapons as Shepard - it adds nothing except frustration due to poor AI behavior (Shep dead = game over). ME is supposed to be played like a shooter/action game; if you don't like that, don't buy / play ME.

I didn't ask to be able to control squadmates directly (though, again, that was in ME when it was first shown to the press).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 juin 2011 - 06:12 .

[sp0ck 06]

So, if your using the Mattock, you want to be able to pause, fire off a single shot, pause, fire, etc?

I guess making the game 200 hours long would make it more RPG-like.


Maybe you should play Fallout 3. ME's combat sequences are designed and balanced around playing in real time, pausing only to give squad commands and fire off powers that aren't hotkeyed.

As for the player aiming vs skill of the character debate...any video game you ever play using a controller or keyboard will in some form be based off the "skill" of the player manipulating the interface and controls. How does the player's ability to aim and fire "make no sense within the setting"? Its a video game with shooting sequences...Shepard is not an independent entity. He/she is a digital projection of the player in a video game environment. If you are rubbish at aiming, then your Shepard is rubbish as well and I suggest you play an Engineer or Adept.

I feel like you're just arguing semantics. The first ME had some mild stats affecting accuracy, but combat still very closely resembled that of shooter games. ME2 really isn't all that different.

[kstarler]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Eh...

Adrenaline rush is not the same as specializing in shooting with a weapon. It's heigthened sense and superior reflexes. Not the same thing at all.

Infilitrator time dilation while scoping is basicly the same, and a copout from the devs because they know that they can't show the sniperclass as being the sniper class when every random joesmock that picks up a sniper rifle is just as precise with it as the sniperclass is.

The Infiltrator time dilation is an abstract representation of the fact that snipers are trained to control their heart rate and breathing when lining up a shot. It's not perfect, but regardless of your opinion of the abilities, they clearly translate into greater accuracy for those classes, so the point stands, copout or no.

SalsaDMA wrote...

In ME1 you had the option of saying: "My Shepard devotes his energy into becomming a crack shot with this weapon". In ME2 this option is gone because everyone are crack shots with every weapon. Going by the context of ME2s effect on classes, every class received the same amount of accuracy training with weapons, which is downright silly.  It gets even worse when you add the "unless he is a crack shot with the weapon, he wouldn't touch it. Even though it's clearly not an encumbrance issue to carry it, since soldierShep manages just fine to carry around an entire arsenal on his back, and the added options would increase his tactical options."

How does it enhance gameplay or tactics to give a character weapons that they can't use with any level of efficiency? And how do you know it isn't an encumberance issue? The Soldier class is clearly supposed to be a "fighter" class, so allowing that a Soldier has more endurance (and thus is less burdened by a heavier payload) than an Adept (a "caster" class) is no great stretch.

SalsaDMA wrote...

It gets even more funky when you reach the collector mission where you can get your specialization weapon (somewhat plausible) or pick a new type of weapon to use. In other words, appearantly from being a "zero" with a weapontype, Shepard becomes a "hero" with that weapontype, just by picking it up on a mission. Which begs the question: "Why the f... didn't he/she just grab one of those weapons from the Normady locker in the first place?"

The DCS weapon makes sense in regards to the three special weapons (Revenant, Claymore, and Widow).

We are in general agreement as to the rest, and I'm glad BioWare has announced their intention to make it so that the player chooses the weapon loadout, with restrictions on the number of weapons a given class can carry. I think it represents a nice middle ground between ME1 and ME2, where the player picks what weapons their character is proficient with, without having to wait until level 20 or later to actually fire them effectively, or until the DCS to get their preferred weapon.

SalsaDMA wrote...

Where ME1 failed, was by making the initial starting point of Shepards ability to use weapons too low. For most classes it should have given the player one or two points in each weapon skill from the start of, to show his initial training, while the soldier should have gotten several points in a weapontype of his choosing and the infiltrator several points into sniper to start with. And the class skill should have starteed with a higher base as well, to show his 'crack training' to start with.

Having too low a startoff point doesn't mean the system by itself is flawed. It just means the startoff point was too low.

Thats all your opinion. My opinion is that the ME2 system is better and more representative of the real world, as I've stated.

By the way, you keep mentioning how implausible it is that non-weapon specilized classes are "crack shots," but wouldn't it be far less plausible if they weren't? Shepard is saving the galaxy (regardless of his class), ostensibly because he's the only one with the abilities to do so, but you're acting as if he's just some schmoe who barely made it past basic. I think it's far less plausible to say that Shepard should have terrible aim with an AR, if he hasn't specialized in it, than it is to believe he was in the top of his class in basic, and received at LEAST a sharpshooter ranking with each of his weapons.

Modifié par kstarler, 13 juin 2011 - 06:30 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As such, basing arguments on ME being a shooter is an error.  ME clearly is not a shooter.  ME was never a shooter.  Perhaps ME would have been btter for some people if it had been a shooter, and certainly ME2 can be played as if it is a shooter, but overall the ME games are not shooters.

If ME isn't a (part) shooter, I don't know what games are shooters by your definition.

Except, that requires that the player's skill affect Shepard's accuracy, and that makes no sense within the setting.

The player's skill at aiming shouldn't ever have to matter, which is why it is good that ME and ME2 both allow the player to aim while paused.

Why does the player's ability to point at an enemy makes no sense within the ME 'setting'?

What do pausing and 'skill' have to do with each other? Pausing in ME is a tactical option first and foremost - it allows to scan the battlefield and give orders to your squadmates. It's also a feature to make it easier to use powers, something that some players might find difficult in the middle of a hectic fire-fight. Pausing does not help using weapons in any way.

I would agree that the Total War games are excellent strategy games, but I dispute that they offer many real-time features.  Since you're not required to play any of the game in real time, it's not a real-time game.

That forced real-time component is why I never play RTS games.

When you're fighting an actual battle in Total War it's in real-time. The option to pause is put in the game to neutralize the advantage the AI has when controlling 20+ units. When you go fight online and/or versus human opponents, you cannot pause b/c both players are 'handicapped'. Obviously those who can give orders faster will have an advantage; but they will always lose against better tacticians
ME works in a similar way, you don't have to be a good shot to dominate combat - smart use of powers and teamwork play a huge role in combat too.

The two are mutually exclusive.  Each feature of one precludes a corresponding feature of the other.  Shooter combat requires player skill.  RPG combat requires the absence of player skill.  Those are opposites.  They can't be reconciled.

To play a game, you need to operate a K&M which requires 'skill' - it's part of everything you do with a pc. To send an email, you need to type the message first. If you can't do that, you can't mail. Some can type faster, others are more skilled using words.
Skill is always important in games and you're likely going to get better with the controls when you use them often, you will also gain knowledge about the enemies (and areas) you're fighting (in), learning those things will improve your performance. Simply because you don't like to actually shoot someone doesn't mean that feature can never be implemented in a game - that's absurd.

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 13 juin 2011 - 07:51 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

So, if your using the Mattock, you want to be able to pause, fire off a single shot, pause, fire, etc?

I don't know what the Mattock is.  Assuming it's a weapon over which it's not plausible Shepard could exert single-shot control, perhaps a short burst would be more appropriate, though using it like that would prevent the player from tracking a moving target.  Each burst would be aimed at a fixed point.

So the RPG-style combat would likely favour single-shot weapons.

Maybe you should play Fallout 3.

Have.  Good game.  VATS also proved to be a good way to insert RPG combat into a shooter interface.

ME's combat sequences are designed and balanced around playing in real time, pausing only to give squad commands and fire off powers that aren't hotkeyed.

I care much more about coherence than I do about balance.

As for the player aiming vs skill of the character debate...any video game you ever play using a controller or keyboard will in some form be based off the "skill" of the player manipulating the interface and controls. How does the player's ability to aim and fire "make no sense within the setting"? Its a video game with shooting sequences...Shepard is not an independent entity. He/she is a digital projection of the player in a video game environment.

And finally we reach the core of the disagreement.

This is why I've often argued that RPGs are not games.  In games, the players compete, either against each other or against the game.  The player takes action within the game.  In video games, the player is represented within the game by an avatar.

But in RPGs, that's not true.  In RPGs, the character isn't represented within the game world at all.  The character is a wholly independent entity, with his own opinions and beliefs and goals.  And skills.

This is why player aiming doesn't make any sense.  The player doesn't exist, and thus the players skills can't affect the game world.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

What do pausing and 'skill' have to do with each other? Pausing in ME is a tactical option first and foremost - it allows to scan the battlefield and give orders to your squadmates. It's also a feature to make it easier to use powers, something that some players might find difficult in the middle of a hectic fire-fight. Pausing does not help using weapons in any way.

You can aim while paused.

The best example of this, I think, is the final battle with Saren in ME.  He jumps around at gerat speed, and in real time the difficulty, I think, would be in finding him after each jump.

But since you can aim while paused, every time Saren jumps you can just pause the game, look around at your leisure to determine Saren's location, and place your targetting reticle neatly over him.  Then unpause and fire.  Pause again, and repeat.

That's how pausing helps using weapons.  It eliminates the need to select targets in real time.

When you're fighting an actual battle in Total War it's in real-time. The option to pause is put in the game to neutralize the advantage the AI has when controlling 20+ units.

I don't care why the feature is there.  It's there.  I literally never give an order without pausing the game first.  And then I'll pause the game to survey the battlefield to decide whether I need to give another order.  The game is paused probably 60% of the time I'm playing it.

When you go fight online and/or versus human opponents, you cannot pause b/c both players are 'handicapped'.

That would make it a fundamentally different game, and one I wouldn't enjoy at all.

But then, I never play multiplayer anything.

To play a game, you need to operate a K&M which requires 'skill' - it's part of everything you do with a pc.

But once you reach a level of basic competence, extra 'skill' doesn't make any difference in an RPG.  You might play the game more slowly, pausing more often, or for longer periods, but the in-game events are unaffected by your skill with a mouse.

To send an email, you need to type the message first. If you can't do that, you can't mail. Some can type faster, others are more skilled using words.

But the speed at which you type doesn't matter.

It's just the decision-making that matters.  You populate the character's mind with a personality of your choosing, and then you allow that personality to make in-game decisions.