Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Why are you assuming that RPG combat needs to be abstract, or arms-length? If ME combat were stat-driven, it could still offer the player that same level of fine control. It just wouldn't require player skill to input those instructions.wizardryforever wrote...
I think the difference here is that in most RPGs, you aren't directly controlling where your character swings his sword or shoots his gun. Most of the time you simply give orders and your character carries out those orders to the best of his abilities. In that case, it makes perfect sense for accuracy to be determined by character skill and not player skill, since the player is not directly involved in the combat. Take for instance Dragon Age. You can tell Alistair to attack that genlock, but you don't tell him where to place his sword strikes yourself. He does that.
Now in Mass Effect, you the player are controlling Shepard's attacks. Who he attacks, where he places his shots, if he takes cover, etc, are all governed by you the player. It logically follows then, that if you suck at actually being in the character's shoes instead of passively giving orders, then your character is going to suck as well. You may not like it, but it makes perfect sense in context. Also, shouldn't this be more immersive, since you are directly controlling the character's actions? In this case, shooter mechanics actually make the RPG part better, IMO.
I really don't care about immersiveness. Immersion is my job, not the game's job.Again, you're presupposing the outcome. If the game were stat-driven, being good at it would be all about decision-making, not aiming. your supposed skill at aiming would cease to be relevant, and thus you could no longer claim that it makes you "good at the game".I don't think any kind of accuracy stat should come back for Shepard, because it frustrates those of us who are actually good at the game to miss because of some arbitrary number.
I would agree, and I'm not asking for that.It handicaps those who are good at the game without really doing anything for those who suck at the game (they'll still suck at it even if accuracy stats are included). Bringing everyone down to the same level of mediocrity just seems spiteful.
But he can also be very inaccurate with the Vindicator, regardless of his tactics, if the player is inaccurate. That's the problem.That said, accuracy stats are still in ME2. Except now, they are properties of the weapons themselves, and not Shepard's skill. So Shepard can be very accurate with the Vindicator, but not the Avenger or the Revenant, at least not without adjusting his tactics. But that all comes down to you the player making that choice, Shepard won't do that on his own.
The stats would control, or at least limit, the abilities of the player. This is fine for abstract games, but when it requires direct input, it gets frustrating to be limited in such a way for no good reason. And why exactly is "decision-making" skill automatically more worthy than aiming skill? What about those poor souls with good aim but suck at making decisions? Why do we not think of them, hmm?
As things are, an accuracy stat would not make someone better at aiming all of a sudden. All it would do is frustrate those who actually are good at aiming. Player skill is always required in a game, and I wonder why you bother playing a game like Mass Effect (which has always been a hybrid of RPG and shooter) if you suck at the shooting part.
Retour en haut
