251 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Accuracy may be affected to some degree because of weapon customization, but it won't be an abstraction like VATS.

I'd rather something like ME's cone of death.

I think you got to give BW credit for having the pause feature in first place, it's great for people who don't have the reflexes and multitasking skills to get through tough spots.

It's good because it removed player skill - for good or ill - from the equation.  And I do applaud BioWare for that.  It's just about the only thing ME2 did right, in my opinion, but it is absolutely something ME2 did right.

But now, asking for a feature to completely undermine the basic premise of how action games work, is getting really close to how a homeless guy, after getting some change from a kind stranger, comes back and demand the deed to his house.

I don't like action games.  I don't want to play ME3 as an action game.

I play every game like a roleplaying game, regardless of how it was designed.  Im sure many developers would think I'm playing their games badly, or incorrectly, but this is how I want to play the games.  And I derive considerable joy from doing so.

Since ME2 (and even more so ME1) already came so close to offering full-bore RPG combat, I'm suggesting the last few features that would complete the design.

And like aiming while paused, all of them would remain optional.  Players who want to play ME3 like an action game could still do so.  They just wouldn't have to.

[TheKillerAngel]

SalsaDMA wrote...

TheKillerAngel wrote...

I want my bullets to land where I aim them, not where some RNG mechanic determines they should be.

Have you ever tried to actually fire a gun? Especially on automatic?

If you had, you wouldn't make such a silly remark as you just did...

I have fired guns, not a select-fire weapon though. I'm not arguing for zero recoil pinpoint accuracy - I know different weapons have different accuracies. An M40 with a match grade barrel is obviously more accurate than a stock SIGP226. But reading this thread makes it sound as if stats should be in control of where you shoot, rather than you. 

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

My point been you asking and liking RPG like combat is fine. It's fine opinion. I like RPG combat too, but only in more classic RPG, not in this kind of games what ME serie present.

Why are you grouping the ME series together?  ME1 did exactly what you're saying the ME series doesn't do.  ME1 had stat-driven aiming.

This is where our opinion go different direction. (PS: I have never sayed that ME1 aiming wasn't affected by "skills")

ME1 was excelent game, but it did have few major issues.

1. Inventory
2. Combat

I'm not gonna go in inventory, because it's not subject of this topic.

How ever, lets go in combat. Combat was build aroung idea of player aiming, but was affected by character skills in ME1. So it was half TPS and half RPG combat.

Create new soldier or infiltrator and go to eden and try use sniper riffle. It was joke. You are elite soldier and you can't hit even house with you gun. Cause to this was skills affecting very strongly to aiming. Second combat issue was pistols, like adding few points to pistol skill and through some miracle you have machine gun in hand. Thirth issue was overhead what could be totally elimated by adding some cooling mods to guns. Then instant ever shooting guns. Then because weapons and armors had so stong affect you abilities survey, you can become allmost like superman in later game. Meaning specter weapons and armors where way too good. Then comes the issue that most weapons in same category feeled same, like they where same weapon with small stat differences. Then comes because defence where so good player doesn't really needed to use cover. Then comes that bionic power where extreme powerfull, even in companions. Try to have Liara and Vrex with you and see all enemies flying in air. Then there was issue that pistol could be come so effective that it makes other weapon DPS as obsolite. And so on and so on...

No I don't say ME1 combat was bad, because it did the job good enough. How ever, it was joke as TPS combat, but fine as RPG combat.

When they changed combat in ME2, it was like totally new combat experience. Not sure how it worked console side, but in PC it really ment alot. Weapons feeled different and like real weapons. You aiming actually ment something. You could shoot leggs of the robots. Cover as avoiding been hit had bigger meaning. Basicly first time ever they actually had TPS combat at all. Because ME1 did not have TPS combat, it had Thirth Person RPG combat.

Point been most of the ME1 combat problems is coming from RPG side. Combination of half way done TPS did not really work well. It maybe little more active RPG combat, but it was joke as TPS combat. Now Bioware was never even trying to make pure RPG game, that why it had TPS side, but in ME1 it did not go well. It was still just RPG combat with twist. Why not then just use RPG combat? Because Bioware wanted Cinematic action RPG and TPS combat fits well in it. RPG combat is better in more slower games. Fast action, it's not so good in RPG combat. Wasn't ME1 combat fast then? It was faster than RPG usually, but it was clumsy, compared to real TPS combat. Could it just been fixed as made better? Yes, but the problems where mostly comming form RPG side.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 02:39 .

[Jonp382]

Stat-driven aiming isn't that bad. The problem is that you only had accuracy in the later levels of Mass Effect. If BioWare had allowed Shepard to start with a much higher accuracy, I bet that nowhere near as many shooter fans would have complained. Also it probably would have benefited ME1 to not have 50 levels.

Also +1 for scoping while paused. I don't think developers would find that an unreasonable request.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

ME1 was excelent game, but it did have few major issues.

1. Inventory
2. Combat

I'm not gonna go in inventory, because it's not subject of this topic.

How ever, lets go in combat. Combat was build aroung idea of player aiming, but was affected by character skills in ME1. So it was half TPS and half RPG combat.

I think you've made a mistake right out of the gate.  ME combat was not built around player aiming.  It was built around stat-driven aiming, and it had an analog target selection mechanic that mimicked player aiming.

That's why I liked it.  ME had fairly traditional RPG combat mechanics, with a non-traditional presentation.

Create new soldier or infiltrator and go to eden and try use sniper riffle. It was joke. You are elite soldier and you can't hit even house with you gun. Cause to this was skills affecting very strongly to aiming.

I will absolteuly agree that the system wasn't well implemented, especially at the beginning of the game.

That doesn't mean stat-driven aiming was a bad idea.  That's far too broad a conclusion.

Second combat issue was pistols, like adding few points to pistol skill and through some miracle you have machine gun in hand. Thirth issue was overhead what could be totally elimated by adding some cooling mods to guns. Then instant ever shooting guns. Then because weapons and armors had so stong affect you abilities survey, you can become allmost like superman in later game. Meaning specter weapons and armors where way too good. Then comes the issue that most weapons in same category feeled same, like they where same weapon with small stat differences. Then comes because defence where so good player doesn't really needed to use cover. Then comes that bionic power where extreme powerfull, even in companions. Try to have Liara and Vrex with you and see all enemies flying in air. Then there was issue that pistol could be come so effective that it makes other weapon DPS as obsolite. And so on and so on...

None of that has anything to do with stat-driven aiming, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

Though I did much prefer biotics in ME, as well.  In ME, biotics were a suitable alternative to gunplay, while in ME2 they only complemented gunplay.

No I don't say ME1 combat was bad, because it did the job good enough. How ever, it was joke as TPS combat, but fine as RPG combat.

When they changed combat in ME2, it was like totally new combat experience. Not sure how it worked console side, but in PC it really ment alot. Weapons feeled different and like real weapons. You aiming actually ment something. You could shoot leggs of the robots. Cover as avoiding been hit had bigger meaning. Basicly first time ever they actually had TPS combat at all. Because ME1 did not have TPS combat, it had Thirth Person RPG combat.

And I liked ME1's combat a lot more.

Point been most of the ME1 combat problems is coming from RPG side.

That's guaranteed by it having been RPG combat.  you've just presupposed your own conclusion.  If ME had RPG combat, then obviously any problems in ME's combat would be related to the RPG-ness of the combat, as that's all their was.

But rather than address those issues, they just threw away the entire system - which had been quite a clever system that gave the player a lot of tactical and roleplaying freedom - and instead dropped in an incoherent and lore-breaking system that we've seen in dozens of other games.

And, most importantly, I liked ME's combat a lot more than I liked ME2's combat.

[FluffyScarf]

If you're on the PC, Syl, you can add weapons to classes that would normally be restricted by default. So you can certainly play an Adept/Engy with a sniper rifle.

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I think you've made a mistake right out of the gate.  ME combat was not built around player aiming.  It was built around stat-driven aiming, and it had an analog target selection mechanic that mimicked player aiming.

No, you are abolute wrong here. Stat based aiming in combat doesn't require player aiming at all, only selecting targets. Remember character is now doing fully the aiming. Example basic RPG has it so that player move cursor and selects target, then click action. Shooter combat is where player targets enemy with aiming cursor and will have to follow the target with aiming to have ability hit the target when shooting. That's player based aiming. ME1 had that, but it was also affected by stat what was the wrong move to have two different thing to do same thing.

I will absolteuly agree that the system wasn't well implemented, especially at the beginning of the game.

Did you think why?

Because RPG progression, from rat to God. That's what RPG is character progression, but in aiming situation it doesn't work, because character "stats" are BAD in the beging of progression, but player isn't. So, stat based aiming forces player to fail in aiming. That's the problem when you mix two aiming.

That doesn't mean stat-driven aiming was a bad idea.  That's far too broad a conclusion.

Not really, only way to fix is it is to reduse stats affects to player aiming. Then you can ask why is it affecting at all? When only thing it in end does is harm players aiming. RPG and TPS doesn't mix well with aiming. You can make seperated system to assit players aiming, but you can never make players own aiming worst. Thats ME1's mistake and it's comming from mixing TPS and RPG.

Second combat issue was pistols, like adding few points to pistol skill and through some miracle you have machine gun in hand. Thirth issue was overhead what could be totally elimated by adding some cooling mods to guns. Then instant ever shooting guns. Then because weapons and armors had so stong affect you abilities survey, you can become allmost like superman in later game. Meaning specter weapons and armors where way too good. Then comes the issue that most weapons in same category feeled same, like they where same weapon with small stat differences. Then comes because defence where so good player doesn't really needed to use cover. Then comes that bionic power where extreme powerfull, even in companions. Try to have Liara and Vrex with you and see all enemies flying in air. Then there was issue that pistol could be come so effective that it makes other weapon DPS as obsolite. And so on and so on...

None of that has anything to do with stat-driven aiming, so I don't know why you're bringing it up.

I did bring them up, because most of these problems are also RPG related and they are all affecting combat baddly. You self keep saying how good it did work, when it wasn't in end really that good.  Sure it worked, but it has a lot of issues. How ever, I agree they aren't aiming related, just general RPG.

And I liked ME1's combat a lot more.

I don't even have to say how bad it was. It's the second thing that spoiled other ways excelent game.

That's guaranteed by it having been RPG combat.  you've just presupposed your own conclusion.  If ME had RPG combat, then obviously any problems in ME's combat would be related to the RPG-ness of the combat, as that's all their was.

Nope, they had two option. One was remove TPS and fix RPG combat. How ever fix RPG combat was not option, BECAUSE player aiming was in ME1, removing TPS aiming would have destroyed hole action side of combat and made hole game slow general RPG. Because player would have lost ability aim and forced to select enemy. Aiming is comming from TPS side. Like I sayed before half TPS and half RPG combat. Second option is to fix the bad thing what is affecting the aiming and that was what? STAT based aiming (character skills affecting players aiming).

But rather than address those issues, they just threw away the entire system - which had been quite a clever system that gave the player a lot of tactical and roleplaying freedom - and instead dropped in an incoherent and lore-breaking system that we've seen in dozens of other games.

Of cause they had no other choise, keep the current broken combat or make it work as redo it and accept full TPS combat. Because going full RPG wasn't really option to keep action RPG working well. Full RPG would have basicly destroyed what Bioware was trying to do.

So, conclusion (ME1 -> ME2): Some choises in combat:

1. Keep the currect system
 - Players has issues, like the sniper riffle. Nothing really get fixed.

2. Redo the system as TPS combat
 - Players have issues as accept TPS combat (like you). How ever the combat works.

3. Redo the system as normal RPG
 - This would make game work, but hole nature from action RPG would be destroyed, because no fast shooting anymore. RPG combat is too slow, because targeting, select, do action. Takes too long in time. Some player has issues as accepting RPG combat.

4. Redo the system as Tabula Rasa type RPG.
 - This could have worked all RPG player and still kept the fast tempo. Not as good as TPS but pretty close to ME1 current one. Also this would be totally character stat based, so no player aiming is required, but still it allows faster targeting. Of course all players who prefer shooter combat would not accept this as any good, like ME1. But the difference would been that for  RPG's players those who gets TPS, this would not feel so broken, like the half way done ME1 combat was.

Blue line is player aiming, how high it's, is based players own skill. Red line is character progression related stat aiming where it starts and stop is game based. Black line near them is result of them togather as mix. First stats aiming is making total aiming worst, then later players own aiming is limiting total aiming result. Point been it doesn't matter how you do them togather, because total aiming is allways worst of them both.




PS: I have played ones pretty fast RPG, but it doesn't exist anymore. Tabula Rasa mmorpg. It's combat was RPG based, but it had auto locking feature. Meaning when you target enemy with cursor and start shooting, game automaticly locked in that target. So, shooting it self was also selecting target. It's not as good as TPS combat, but it's faster than basic RPG. Little like something between them.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 08:38 .

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

Sekhem wrote...

Neverwinter_Knight77 wrote...

One of RPGs' most annoying elements, aside from grinding, are stats (usually in the form of strength, dexterity, etc). Good riddance, I say.  .

So in other words ... you don't like RPGs. =P

I play RPGs to get into a role as a character -- to "be" them, in a sense -- kind of like acting... but with some writing too.

[Gatt9]

Lumikki wrote...
No, you are abolute wrong here. Stat based aiming in combat doesn't require player aiming at all, only selecting targets. Remember character is now doing fully the aiming. Example basic RPG has it so that player move cursor and selects target, then click action. Shooter combat is where player targets enemy with aiming cursor and will have to follow the target with aiming to have ability hit the target when shooting. That's player based aiming. ME1 had that, but it was also affected by stat what was the wrong move to have two different thing to do same thing.

I'm going to have to agree with your general premise here,  that Character Based Skill and Player Based Skill cannot be mixed,  and that attempting to do so generates all kinds of problems.

One of the two systems eventually must become dominant,  either the Character Skills remain relevant through the entire game,  in which case the Player Skills are always "Handicapped",  or the Character Skills diminish to the point of irrelevance as the game progresses.  There's no way to balance it.

I disagree that ME2's direction was a wise choice though,  the shift to TPS did not help the game,  primarily because it was an extremely weak TPS that boiled down to "Hide in cover,  wait for pause,  aim where they'll stand,  wait for pause to expire,  shoot".  For every single fight.

It also highlighted the extreme weakness,  to the point of nonexistance,  of all RPG features,  essentially just kicking the RPGers while down when they discover there's no inventory,  no items,  choices don't actually do anything,  and even the levels mean absolutely nothing as you'll be fighting the exact same opponents for the entire game without any change in challenge,  just like any given Shooter.

But your general premise is sound,  we'll just have to disagree on whether ME or ME2 was the better path.  I doubt we'll really get anywhere on that,  'cause I expect an RPG,  and I'm guessing you're in favor of the TPS.

Modifié par Gatt9, 11 juin 2011 - 07:10 .

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

But your general premise is sound,  we'll just have to disagree on whether ME or ME2 was the better path.  I doubt we'll really get anywhere on that,  'cause I expect an RPG,  and I'm guessing you're in favor of the TPS.

It's different between is the gameplay fast or slow. ME gameplay has fast cinematic action style. If we go little more classic RPG, then the slower strategy side is better. One other thing too affects this. Is games main focus range or close combat. Because TPS favors range combat while RPG favors close combat. So, I don't allways favor same combat, it's based what kind of game we talk.

So, In ME series case, fast action and a lot of range combat = TPS for me.
In DA series case, slow strategy (half fast in DA2) and a lot of close combat = RPG for me.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 07:22 .

[sky_captain]

Going have to side with Lumikki here. ME1's combat was very a very middle of the road hybrid that really kept it from being exceptional in any way shape or form. Given that and the fact that ME is more of a fast paced action rpg, than the more slow burn rpg such as DA:O, going to a more pure form of TPS gameplay with the rgp element serving to compliment that style wilth the different skills and powers, rather that defining it with the clunky hybrid of ME1 slowing down the pace with a pure rpg system.

[CroGamer002]

ME1 shooter elements can barely be called shooter elements do to poor execution of that system.

[TexasToast712]

I dont understand what you are asking for.

[TheBlackBaron]

TexasToast712 wrote...

I dont understand what you are asking for.

Stat-driven combat a la ME1, essentially, where the crosshairs are essentially a glorified version of the target selection system present since KotOR. I thought that was obvious.

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 11 juin 2011 - 08:38 .

[Esbatty]

Didn't Alpha Protocol work the same way as the ME1 shooting system?

[Bozorgmehr]

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm going to have to agree with your general premise here,  that Character Based Skill and Player Based Skill cannot be mixed,  and that attempting to do so generates all kinds of problems.

ME2 is a mix of character/class based skills and player shooter skills - it doesn't create any problems at all, in fact, it's a great way to mix those two genres.

One of the two systems eventually must become dominant,  either the Character Skills remain relevant through the entire game,  in which case the Player Skills are always "Handicapped",  or the Character Skills diminish to the point of irrelevance as the game progresses.  There's no way to balance it.

Have you played ME2? If so, can you explain what you mean by this b/c I'm a bit confused here.

To play ME2 at full potential you'll need powers, weapons and teamwork - ignoring one of em will result in a "handicapped" playstyle. ME is about the balance between powers and shooting. 

I disagree that ME2's direction was a wise choice though,  the shift to TPS did not help the game,  primarily because it was an extremely weak TPS that boiled down to "Hide in cover,  wait for pause,  aim where they'll stand,  wait for pause to expire,  shoot".  For every single fight.

ME2's aim is to combine RPG with TPS, not favoring one over the other. You may not like that, but it's silly to judge or critize a game for the very thing it tries to accomplish.

If you hide in cover all day long, that's your call - not something related to Mass Effect. Pausing is also a luxury. I don't see what your playstyle has to do with the game itself, it's not like you have to hide in cover - in fact, you can play ME2 (on Insanity) with all 6 classes without much need for cover at all.

It also highlighted the extreme weakness,  to the point of nonexistance,  of all RPG features,  essentially just kicking the RPGers while down when they discover there's no inventory,  no items,  choices don't actually do anything,  and even the levels mean absolutely nothing as you'll be fighting the exact same opponents for the entire game without any change in challenge,  just like any given Shooter.

ME2 has less powers/skills than ME1, but you can do a lot more with em - ME2 has less weapons than ME1, but you can do more with em. RPGs =/= 100+ worthless menus and stats. I also recommend playing ME2 (again) b/c choices do have consequences. Start the Suicide Mission with a loyal and an unloyal team and see how things develop.
Can you name a game that does throw different enemies at you all the time, provides a real challenge, and is completely different from all other games out there?

But your general premise is sound,  we'll just have to disagree on whether ME or ME2 was the better path.  I doubt we'll really get anywhere on that,  'cause I expect an RPG,  and I'm guessing you're in favor of the TPS.

This is ridiculous. Mass Effect tries to be neither a rpg nor a tps - the whole point of this game is to be a bit of both. If you don't like that, don't play this game. What you're doing here is like bashing FIFA because you can't equip your central defender with a shotgun.

[Lumikki]

Esbatty wrote...

Didn't Alpha Protocol work the same way as the ME1 shooting system?

Not sure, I never got so far in the game, did in Alpha protocol the skills affect aiming. When I played it, I did not notice stats (skills) affecting my aiming at all. More like damage change maybe, like in close combat skill?

[CroGamer002]

Esbatty wrote...

Didn't Alpha Protocol work the same way as the ME1 shooting system?

Yeah.

It's better( mainly since weapons didn't had Accuracy stats) but it still sucks.

Modifié par Mesina2, 11 juin 2011 - 08:56 .

[ChristianSoldier]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So, Mass Effect had what I think was a terrific stat-driven aiming mechanic.  It was the first time I'd seen a shooter with stat-driven aiming.  It basically took traditional RPG target selection and converted it to an analog process so that it would fit inside a shooter interface.

I really liked it.

Then Mass Effect 2 took that away.  I have a great many complaints about that, but what's important here is that ME2 still allowed the player to aim while paused, thus eliminating the need to have player skill determine Shepard's accuracy.

I think this is very important.  If Shepard's an elite soldier, her accuracy should not depend on my accuracy.  She shouldn't shoot less well if I'm drunk, or if I'm injured, and she shouldn't shoot more accurately just because I got some practise.

The ability to aim while paused saved ME2's combat from becoming nothing more than an action game.  Without it, I likely would have found the game unplayable.  On this topic, I have several questions about ME3:

Can we still aim while paused in ME3?

Will there be any stat-driven effects affecting aiming or damage (which can serve as an abstraction of accuracy)?

Can we still trigger biotic and tech abilities while paused?

Will we finally be able to use a scope while paused?

Will we finally be able to trigger a weapon while paused?

Sorry to hurt your feelings but ME3 adopts shooter gameplay from ME2. None of that RPG auto aim crap from ME1.

[ChristianSoldier]

Jonp382 wrote...

Stat-driven aiming isn't that bad. The problem is that you only had accuracy in the later levels of Mass Effect. If BioWare had allowed Shepard to start with a much higher accuracy, I bet that nowhere near as many shooter fans would have complained. Also it probably would have benefited ME1 to not have 50 levels.

Also +1 for scoping while paused. I don't think developers would find that an unreasonable request.

So is stat driven aiming back in ME3? Cuz i hope not its guan **** up the gameplay mech again. Im a primarily a shooter player thats why. Hated ME1 shooting mechs.

[Lumikki]

Mesina2 wrote...

Esbatty wrote...

Didn't Alpha Protocol work the same way as the ME1 shooting system?

Yeah.

It's better( mainly since weapons didn't had Accuracy stats) but it still sucks.

That's odd, when you used machine gun, it's recoil cause accurity change as simulating kick.

How ever, if you target enemy, the aiming cursor was very steady even in level 1.

ChristianSoldier wrote...

So is stat driven aiming back in ME3? Cuz i hope not its guan **** up the gameplay mech again. Im a primarily a shooter player thats why. Hated ME1 shooting mechs.

Nope, ME3 will have close to same system what ME2 had. The OP just wish more ME1 like system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 09:06 .

[Niddy']

Can we please, please, get rid of auto-aim? I don't know how many times I've had to fight the game to aim at people.

[ChristianSoldier]

Lumikki wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Esbatty wrote...

Didn't Alpha Protocol work the same way as the ME1 shooting system?

Yeah.

It's better( mainly since weapons didn't had Accuracy stats) but it still sucks.

That's odd, when you used machine gun, it's recoil cause accurity change as simulating kick.

How ever, if you target enemy, the aiming cursor was very steady even in level 1.

ChristianSoldier wrote...

So is stat driven aiming back in ME3? Cuz i hope not its guan **** up the gameplay mech again. Im a primarily a shooter player thats why. Hated ME1 shooting mechs.

Nope, ME3 will have close to same system what ME2 had. The OP just wish more ME1 like system.

ME1 system was terrible. To clarify on your statement.

ME3 has the same shooter mech as ME2 but why is there an accuracy stat on the weapon customization?

[Jonp382]

ChristianSoldier wrote...

Jonp382 wrote...

Stat-driven aiming isn't that bad. The problem is that you only had accuracy in the later levels of Mass Effect. If BioWare had allowed Shepard to start with a much higher accuracy, I bet that nowhere near as many shooter fans would have complained. Also it probably would have benefited ME1 to not have 50 levels.

Also +1 for scoping while paused. I don't think developers would find that an unreasonable request.

So is stat driven aiming back in ME3? Cuz i hope not its guan **** up the gameplay mech again. Im a primarily a shooter player thats why. Hated ME1 shooting mechs.

I doubt stat-driven aiming is back for ME3. I was just pointing out what the main problem with ME1 was in regards to appealing to shooter players. Shepard has to start with low accuracy. What they should have done instead, was allow Shepard to start with a very high accuracy if the player chose so. Maybe they could allow you to set it to the max right at the start. Though this would require that the game only have a few levels at most. 50 like in ME1 would be way too many. In order to have good encounter design they would need more like 5 or 10.

But again, I doubt BioWare will go back to stats.

[sky_captain]

Niddy' wrote...

Can we please, please, get rid of auto-aim? I don't know how many times I've had to fight the game to aim at people.

There was no auto aim for ME2 which is the same base system being used in ME3