251 réponses à ce sujet

[Niddy']

sky_captain wrote...


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

Your wrong; there was a aim assist. I fought the game countless times to aim at my targets.

[Xewaka]

ChristianSoldier wrote...
ME1 system was terrible. To clarify on your statement.

ME1 system was bad as a FPS. If you considered the aiming reticle as the target selector instead, it made for a very dynamic target selection system for a RPG. It was an unusual and inventive presentation, however, which confused some people.

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

There were accuracy stats in ME 2 as well. They reduce the starting crosshair spread. It is specially evident with the Revenant machinegun.

Modifié par Xewaka, 11 juin 2011 - 10:20 .

[Amfortas]

I don't understand what makes some poeple think that shooting is not an ability at the same level as biotics and tech. There are several classesin the game and not everyone is based around shooting, if you want to be a good shot you have to put points in weapons in the same way you have to put points in biotics if you want to be a good biotic.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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?

it's probably going to be like ME2, yes yes yes no

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

It seems that you have some sort of VATS system in mind, selecting the target and then letting stats determine if if hits or not. It could be nice, but  I'm not sure if it could work well with moving enemies.

[CaptainZaysh]

Stat-based aiming isn't coming back. I hope they don't take out this ability to aim while using the power wheel, though. It sounds like a very boring way to play but it's obviously very important to some of the fans (and it even makes it playable for somebody with mild cerebral palsy, which is just excellent). BW should put back in the option to shoot from this mode. (Maybe as a semi-hidden menu toggle - hide it from the casual gamer under an "accessibility" menu option.)

That said, I think some grognards who are physically able are missing a trick by not playing the shooting parts. What you gain in micromanaging the shooting parts you lose in synergy with your PC. Barely surviving a wild shootout by making a sequence of correct split second decisions is not only an incredibly addictive and rewarding experience but I think it helps put you in a mental and emotional state more in line with where Shepard's would be.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

To some of the previous posters...

First, VATS sucked. It was one of the many, many reasons why Fallout 3 was my first and last Fallout game. I liked the beginning part when you were a growing child, but after you left the vault, I hated the game.

Second, what's all this talk about auto aim? It's completely optional. It's on the options menu. I never use it.

[Gatt9]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

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.

.

We're on two different topics here,  what I was talking about was stat-based aiming (Deus Ex,  ME 1) versus skill-based aiming (Shooters,  ME2).  You can't merge stat-based and skill-based aiming in these supposed "Hybrids".

If you go ME/Deus Ex route,  and try to mix them,  essentially what you've done is created a Shooter where the player is handicapped by the RNG,  and the "Levels" just serve to slowly decrease that handicap.  Meaning,  at Level 1 the player's bullet will land say somewhere in a 1" radius around the point he fired it at,  but at level 5 it might be 1/2",  and at level 10 maybe 1/4".  So essentially the process of leveling is just reducing the handicap,  with each level making the Stats increasingly redundant.  At some point,  the Player's skill surpasses the handicap and he is able to play the game as a full shooter without issue,  at this point,  the levels and the stats become completely pointless.

That's the major issue with "Hybrid" systems,  the further you play into the game,  the less the RPG mechanics matter,  until at the end you're just playing a unadulterated Shooter.  Which begs the question of why the stats were even implemented in the first place,  as they really only do anything for maybe half of the game or less.

This is in contrast to a full RPG with complete Stat based targeting,  where the opponents increase in difficulty as the game progresses,  and you always have a chance to miss opponents of your approximate level in difficulty.

ME2's system isn't really an improvement though,  but that's a conversation for the ammo threads.

[Golden Owl]

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?

I didn't like ME1 Sniper issues at all...all my points being poured into sniper and accuracy asap...the swinging gun drove me nuts....Just curious, why would you want to aim while paused? wouldn't that take all the fun the challenge of a good head shot?

[SalsaDMA]

kstarler wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Gotta love it when people take you showing an argument to be fallible as if you are making the argument yourself...

10-4 for comprehension...

Please explain to me what I failed to comprehend, besides sarcasm, which clearly doesn't always come accross in text? If your post was sarcastic in nature (I'm still unclear) then I apologize, though there are others who have made similar points in regards to this tired discussion, so the argument still applies.

Fair enough. Yes, I'm often sarcastic in my posts I'm afraid. Call it a deficit of character if you want

SalsaDMA wrote...
I also find it funny that when the OP asks for something that exists in the series, it is claimed that it never existed at all... Again 10-4 for comprehension...

Can you show me where I claimed that it never existed? Oh, wait, "10-4 for comprehension..." See? I can do that too. I never claimed it didn't exist, I pointed out that the game developers wanted to make a Shooter/RPG hybrid. They failed to incorporate sufficient shooter mechanics in ME1, and adjusted for that when they designed ME2.

The OP started out by asking for stuff that existed in ME1, and later on another guy proclaims that the stuff he is asking never existed in the ME series. Go read the thread story if you don't believe me.

SalsaDMA wrote...
And the final 10-4 in comprehension: Figure out what the respons in regards to accuracy was actually a respons to: People claiming firing a gun was just pointing their gun at something and then they would magically hit what they were pointing at.

The only comprehension I see failing, again, is yours. They were saying in regards to a video game (not real life) that a well trained special operative would know how to aim and fire a basic weapon like an AR. The argument you are claiming they made does not exist.

Nope. Read the thread again. A couple of peeps posted that they expected to hit whatever they pointed their gun at. No mention of anything else besides this "fact". Which is, ofc, where they are horribly wrong as far as shooting an actual gun goes.

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.

SalsaDMA wrote...
But at the very least you formulated well, despite not really having added anything that should have been added if you had read the posts proper...

I'm not going to argue which opinion is more valid. The OP opined that they would rather have stat based aiming a la ME1. I opined that I would rather have aiming a la ME2. Clearly the OP was inviting just this type of conversation by creating the thread, so I fail to see how my post "should [not] have been added if [I] read the posts proper..."

It's a matter of preference for which kind of game you want. Do you want a game where you play the role of commander Shepard, thus meaning that it's Shepards ability to shoot that should be the deciding factor in wether the shots hits; or do you want to play the role of you playing a shooting game where it's your ability to shoot stuff through the given interface given that is the deciding factor in wether shots connect with enemies.

Some prefer the ability to immersive themselves and play the role of Commander Shepard. Some prefer the ability to just play a videogame without needing to abstractilize too much mentally in order to 'get the point'.

Roleplaying isn't everyones cup of tea, which is why discussions like this thread occur.

[SalsaDMA]

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.

I think the main difference in Alpha Protocol was that it rewarded the player for aiming rather than pointing and shooting. When aiming at a target your cursors would converge to a point as time went by, and waiting with firing untill they reached the convergence point meant your character had spent enough time aiming to ensure 'critical hits'. It's the reason why the pistol, despite being weakassed in quick gun fights, was a potent 'close stealth sniper weapon' that could oneshot enemies silenced with a carefully aimed headshot.

I never tried the smg varient of play, but AR agent usually benefitted from cover and waiting for the aim to get perfect before firing. As a 'pistolero' it was more about taking peeps down from surprise attacks, and a shotgun agent just mowed through people while blasting them to the ground all the time. The special skills augmenting the weapontypes ofc helped in situations where you needed to take on multiple opponents without loosing too much convergence aiming. (The pistol was pretty brutal in this regard when you could sneak into a room and then blow the entire room down with headshots before anyone even got to draw their weapons).

I can imagine the twitch players felt the system was agonizing, though. I kinda liked it after I got used to gunplay being slightly more a thinking mans game than just blasting here and there (except for the shotgun, which WAS just a 'mow them down' weapon, and brutally effective at that, if you didn't care about hitting stray targets next to your intended target)

[Lumikki]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Roleplaying isn't everyones cup of tea, which is why discussions like this thread occur.

In general this comment of course is right. How ever, if we talk aiming, character doing it or player doing, doesn't really prevent roleplaying.

Example you can play character so that you just control the factors related your character. Meaning it's you character who is doing everyting and you just deside directions. That's fine way to roleplaying. Or you can start you self acting as take role of the character as becoming the character, that's also fine way roleplaying. Point been aiming doesn't it self deny or provide roleplaying, it more like selection how player likes to roleplay.

Like OP wants to control character when roleplaying, what if fine choise. But it's not only way to roleplay.

Also when Bioware did create ME serie they have,  little like they want to reach the cap between RPG player and shooter player. Now don't get me wrong when I say shooter player, I mean any player who like player based aiming. Situation isn't just black and white, like there is only two side. There's alot of people between these too extreme sides and they may find game like Mass Effect serie interesting. Because it allows them to do player aiming while still learn basic skill of roleplaying (RPG). Little like sentle push in some direction.

Problem has been that hardcore RPG players are angry because they want only RPG and are used that Bioware does that. What's very understable, but also very not so friendly way to threat other players. Not every player who likes player aiming is RPG enemy. In these forums everyting allways go so exreme, it's one way or other with people, when people are just big gray mass of  a lot of different taste of games.

So, while I understand what OP is asking, ME serie isn't the game for it. It was create for different reasons.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 05:00 .

[Ice Cold J]

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?

KINDA the whole point of Mass Effect is that YOU ARE Shepard.

If you're not a good shooter, don't play soldier or start on an easier difficulty.

Even elite marksmen miss occasionally, especially when they are also getting shot at.

[SalsaDMA]

Lumikki wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Roleplaying isn't everyones cup of tea, which is why discussions like this thread occur.

In general this comment of course is right. How ever, if we talk aiming, character doing it or player doing, doesn't really affect roleplaying.

Wrong.

2 easy examples to show why this isn't the case:

1) The player is a better shot through the interface than the character should be. Breaks immersion.

2) The player is a worse shot through the interface than the character should be. Breaks immersion.

And let us be honest. How many of the playerbase do we realistically expect to be of the same marksman level as soldier Shepard with an AR or infiltrator Shepard with a sniper rifle?

The pendant would be to ask people to use their biotic potential to select biotic powers if they wanted to use biotic powers in the game. I think no-one expects anyone to be able to use biotic powers in the real world to interact with the games interface when using biotic powers, yet people expect the same level of throughput to be able to use their characters shooting skills. Should we demand electronics knowledge of transistors, resistances and conductors in order to be able to play with electronics? Or knowledge of programming language and/or tricks to get unwarranted access into systems in order to hack in the game?

Ofc not.

Which is why some people argue against shooting skills being the only skill that gets this 'special treatment' just to pander to a different target group than roleplayers.

[Lumikki]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Roleplaying isn't everyones cup of tea, which is why discussions like this thread occur.

In general this comment of course is right. How ever, if we talk aiming, character doing it or player doing, doesn't really affect roleplaying.

Wrong.

I corrected that sentense in my post, because it wasn't right.

2 easy examples to show why this isn't the case:

1) The player is a better shot through the interface than the character should be. Breaks immersion.

2) The player is a worse shot through the interface than the character should be. Breaks immersion.

Sure, but so does stat based aiming too.

Look ME1 and snipper riffle situation. Why to hell you think people are complainign it. RPG progression through stat are forced to character when it doesn't make sense in story wise at all. Just sake of having RPG stats progression.

Which is why some people argue against shooting skills being the only skill that gets this 'special treatment' just to pander to a different target group than roleplayers.

Not sure what you try to say here. It sounds to me like you are arguing that game where is player aiming can't be roleplayed? It seem to me, like you have taken attitude as thinking like only players who like classic RPG combat can be roleplayers?

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 05:15 .

[SalsaDMA]

Lumikki wrote...

Not sure what you try to say here. It sounds to me like you are arguing that game where is player aiming can't be roleplayed? It seem to me, like you have taken attitude as thinking like only players who like classic RPG combat can be roleplayers?

Depends on your stance. Roleplaying means playing a role. Not playing as yourself.

When the ability to hit something is directly related to your ability to hit something, you are playing as yourself, not as someone else. Only by detaching the ability to hit something from your own ability can you play the role of another in its entirity.

The system in which to achieve a perfect simulation of how your character would perform, rather than how you would perform through a random interface, is debateable, though. Some people seem to prefer simple systems without too much overhead (like the d20 system), while others like as acurate a simulation as they can mathematically produce, with hit locations, parameters for chances of occurence of random stuff and so; and finally a 3rd group eskews systems totally and prefers to let the 'storyteller' dictate the outcome of any attempted actions by the characters.

The final option is close to impossible to simulate in computergames, though, as it require the running imagination of an active person, which is why we only have various mathematical systems on the computerplatform to simulate it.

[Lumikki]

So when you deside behave of you character what choises to do, you aren't roleplaying, you are making your own personal judgement calls?

When some actor is acting role in movie, they are just them self, they can't really play any other role than them self, right?

Point been, when you do player aiming, you just take direct control of character like you do when you do any other choises behave of character. I can still roleplay my character even if I fail to arrive the level of my character physical aiming, like you intelligent may be too low to simulate you character choises right. Just been less good or too good in something as not been perfect, doesn't prevent ability roleplay as take role (acting).

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 05:41 .

[HTTP 404]

ah Slyvius, I disagree with you on this one. Mass Effect is an action rpg. I dont like the idea of handicapping players for the sake of RPG.

In this case spending points to be able to shoot better takes away from my ability to invest points that are much more exciting like singularity and drone. My gripe in ME1 was that I would have spend 10 plus points and being able to USE a gun of my choice: NOT that exciting.

[SalsaDMA]

Lumikki wrote...

So when you deside behave of you character what choises to do, you aren't roleplaying, you are making your own personal judgement calls?

When some actor is acting role in movie, they are just them self, they can't really play any other role than them self, right?

Point been, when you do player aiming, you just take direct control of character like you do when you do any other choises behave of character. I can still roleplay my character even if I fail to arrive the level of my character physical aiming, like you intelligent may be too low to simulate you character choises right. Just been less good or too good in something as not been perfect, doesn't prevent ability roleplay as take role (acting).

Your are jumping to conclusions.

Let me put it like this:
If I put on police cap while standing in my regular clothes, does that mean I am suddenly wearing a police uniform?
If I stand in my normal clothes and grab a hockey stick, would I be a hockey player ready for the ice?

No?

Then why do you think that only putting on the cap is the same as taking on the full uniform?
Why do you think grabbing the hockey stick is the same as wearing full hockey gear?

And actors are roleplaying. They aren't shooting stuff themselves either, if you notice, but act the motions while the sfx guys make the 'shooting' happen.

A roleplayer tells the interface what he wants the character to do and lets the interface carry out his actions to the best of his characters abilities.
A video gamer uses the interface to do what he wants to do himself.

There is quite a difference.

[Lumikki]

Yeah, but you character in game doesn't have all abilities simulatated. The character doesn't make it's own decission based character abilities. Character is making decission based your ability make decissions.

What you argue is that giving order to puppet what to do, like walk that direction is better roleplaying than you deside where to shoot as aiming. I'm not in real life holding that gun I just deside what direction to shoot and when. That's same decission making than moving character by, go foward, stop, turn left.

My point been you are judging one style of decission making behave of character, while dismiss that you do these same kind of stuff all the time for you charcater. You call one roleplaying and other not, why?

I could even go so far that if you want all abilities be done by you character and you just deside directions as control. Are you anymore even roleplaying at all as taking role or are you just controlling character what you have define. Point been more direct control you have to you character, better possibilities you self have play a role. It's difference between creating role and controlling it, like a movie director and playing the role, like actor.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 06:40 .

[SalsaDMA]

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, but you character in game doesn't have all abilities simulatated. The character doesn't make it's own decission based character abilities. Character is making decission based your ability make decissions.

What you argue is that giving order to puppet what to do, like walk that direction is better roleplaying than you deside where to shoot as aiming. I'm not in real life holding that gun I just deside what direction to shoot and when. That's same decission making than moving character by, go foward, stop, turn left.

My point been you are judging one style of decission making behave of character, while dismiss that you do these same kind of stuff all the time for you charcater. You call one roleplaying and other not, why?

I could even go so far that if you want all abilities be done by you character and you just deside directions as control. Are you anymore even roleplaying at all as taking role or are you just controlling character what you have define. Point been more direct control you have to you character, better possibilities you self have play a role. It's difference between creating role and controlling it, like a movie director and playing the role, like actor.

One decision is decided by how you want to roleplay your character, the other is decided by your reflexes.

That's the difference. Reflexes =/= roleplaying.

Looking at interviews and press release it seems like Bioware threw out their baby with the water, though. From the info released and interviews they've given, it's clear they are NOW of the opinion that rpg = skills to choose from.

I guess they think a game like Borderlands was a rpg too then

I'm not holding much faith for anything but pure shooter mechanics in the game by now.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Right.  Just like ME1.

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.

Yes.  I dislike shooters, and neither ME game requires this, so I don't know why you're using it as an example.

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.

Not all RPGs have that steep a power curve.  I've been asking for a shallower power curve for years, and ME would have been a great time to use one.  If ME had started at level 40 and finished at level 60, the aiming system would have worked much better.

You're assuming the worse possible RPG traits and then explaining why they won't work.  Well of course they won't work if you design the game specifically to fail.

Don't do that.

There's a reason my favourite BioWare RPG is Baldur's Gate.  It had the shallowest power curve.

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.

The player doesn't need to be aiming at all.  He should just be selecting targets.

And both ME and ME2 allow that ecause they both allow the player to aim while paused.  That completely eliminates player skill, and reduces his input to target selection.

ME already does this.  I don't know why you keep saying that they are fundamentally shooters.  They're not.

RPG and TPS doesn't mix well with aiming.

I think they mixed very well in ME1.  That allowed real-time stat-driven aiming.  ME2 only allows stat-driven combat if the player aims while paused, so it's ME2 that I think is a poor mix.  If the goal was to make the combat faster and more actiony, it completely failed because it forces players to pause the game to remove their own skill from the mechanics.

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.

The combat is one of only two things in ME1 that I liked.  I liked the open exploration on the uncharted worlds (particularly in the Mako, but also the freedom to leave the Make and explore on foot), and I liked the combat.

Most of the rest of the game was horribly broken.  The dialogue system (which BioWare now appears to use in everything) was an unmitigated disaster.

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).

As I mentioned above, the thing I like about ME1's combat is that it is a really traditional RPG combat system, but it's presented to look like a TPS combat system.

What you're doing is being fooled by that RPS presentation, so you think it actually is a TPS combat system, and it's just a really bad one.  And it would be.  As a TPS combat system, ME1 is probably awful (I have never played a TPS game, so I can't really judge), but that's the wrong standard.  ME1 has RPG combat, and it's terrific.

RPG combat is too slow, because targeting, select, do action. Takes too long in time.

And yet, this is exactly how both ME games work if you aim while paused.

The only difference is that in ME2 Shepard never misses.  If you aim while paused in ME1, Shepard will shoot based on her accuract stats.  But in ME2, her aim is always perfect.  She never ever misses under any circumstances.

How is that better?

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.

Your chart is completely irrelevant, because both ME games allow the player to aim while paused.  So player skill, both in ME and ME2, never has to matter if the player doesn't want it to.  The player can follow the red line through the whole game if he wants.

That's what I asked at the start of the thread.  Will ME3 still let us aim while paused?  As long as it does, the combat won't require any player skill at all, and that's what I want from the combat.  I'd rather a deeper and more interesting system that "always hits", but if that's what they want to build in ME3 (just as they did in ME2), I'll take it.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 juin 2011 - 09:14 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Amfortas wrote...
It seems that you have some sort of VATS
system in mind, selecting the target and then letting stats determine
if if hits or not. It could be nice, but  I'm not sure if it could work
well with moving enemies.

Not quite.  VATS resolves the
result of the attack before resuming real-time.  I'd just like to be
able to use weapons in the same way that I can use biotics.  So I'd trigger the weapon while paused, but it wouldn't fire until I resumed real-time (and the weapon would fire the instant real-time resumed).

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Stat-based aiming isn't coming back. I hope they don't take out this ability to aim while using the power wheel, though. It sounds like a very boring way to play but it's obviously very important to some of the fans (and it even makes it playable for somebody with mild cerebral palsy, which is just excellent). BW should put back in the option to shoot from this mode. (Maybe as a semi-hidden menu toggle - hide it from the casual gamer under an "accessibility" menu option.)

That said, I think some grognards who are physically able are missing a trick by not playing the shooting parts. What you gain in micromanaging the shooting parts you lose in synergy with your PC. Barely surviving a wild shootout by making a sequence of correct split second decisions is not only an incredibly addictive and rewarding experience but I think it helps put you in a mental and emotional state more in line with where Shepard's would be.

That would harm roleplaying.  If I'm having an emotional reaction to combat, that will inhibit my ability to determine Shepard's emotional reaction separately from mine.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Golden Owl wrote...

Just curious, why would you want to aim while paused? wouldn't that take all the fun the challenge of a good head shot?

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.

[Lumikki]

SalsaDMA wrote...

One decision is decided by how you want to roleplay your character, the other is decided by your reflexes.

That's the difference. Reflexes =/= roleplaying.

Reflex? You kiding? Pressing keys isn't physical task? Clicking mouse in right time to do spell attack isn't reflex?

Both situation are based decission what player wants to do with character as giving orders to character. The tool what is used to get the instruction to character is irreleant, it's just UI.

If you don't like to use sertain UI's, that's your personal issue, but it doesn't change how it is with roleplaying.

Modifié par Lumikki, 11 juin 2011 - 09:44 .

[Massadonious1]

Since we, as players apparently lack the skill to well, be Shepard and interact with the weapons like he/she does, it would be safe to imagine that we're not as athletically gifted as him/her, either. So, for super awesome immersive RPG purposes, I propose that we have a separate skill tree for each group of muscles in Shepard's body. They can then be grouped up by limb type (1 point in your forearms, biceps, and shoulders equal one collective point, and so on) and each collective point in each group could provide you with different "bonuses". For example:

One point in each set of arm muscles (both left and right) will allow you to hold the gun.
Two points in each set of arm muscles (both left and right) will allow you to fire the gun.
Three points in each set of arm muscles (both left and right) combined with at least 1 point in the proposed "accuracy" category gives Shepard the accuracy of a strung out drug addict holding up a liquor store for crack money.
Four points in each set of arm muscles (both left and right) combined with at least 2 points in the accuracy category gives Shepard the accuracy of someone who has been to the firing range once.

The arm muscle category has 10 skill points total, and you would need all 10, combined with a maxed out leg category (which I will highlight in a sec) maxed out body category, and maxed out accuracy category to have Shepard handle a weapon like well, how he is doing now.

Alright, now for the leg muscles.

1 point in each set of leg muscles (both left and right) will allow Shepard to walk.
2 points in each set of leg muscles (both left and right) will allow Shepard to power walk.
3 points in each set of leg muscles (both left and right) will allow Shepard to run like a fat kid running away from bullies.
4 points in each set of leg muscles (both left and right) will allow Shepard to run normally.

There are so many other wonderful "bonuses" I could highlight from my proposal, but I hope both you and BioWare consider how deep and rich of an RPG experience this would be.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 11 juin 2011 - 09:45 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Golden Owl wrote...
Just curious, why would you want to aim while paused? wouldn't that take all the fun the challenge of a good head shot?

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.

Mass Effect has never been an RPG
Mass Effect is a SHOOTER.