3223 réponses à ce sujet

[sp0ck 06]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

I thought having guns with unlimted ammo that didn't generate heat in ME1 were less consistent with the lore than heat sinks were. Also, which is more fun: holding the trigger until everything in front of you is dead, or actually having to take care where you shot in case you ran out of ammo? At least the last one added a vague element of tactics to it other than holding the trigger until nothing is left in front of you.

Since both ME and ME2 allow the player to aim while paused, that supposed "care" you take while aiming is entirely optional.

All the heat sinks did was force me to use less-preferred weapons.  In ME I basically never used anything that wasn't a sniper rifle, because I like sniper rifles (if someone would make a shooter like the original Delta Force again, I'd probably play it), but in ME2 I was constantly having to pull out other weapons because I'd run out of heat sinks.

Thats exactly why heat sinks were added:  so you can't just spam the same weapon over and over.  It requires you to make every shot count when using a sniper rifle.  Could have been better implemented but it was the right move to make.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Then replace the word aiming with the words target selection in that.

But if you do that, you've just made every RPG with a first-person perspective a shooter.  Oblivion is reticle-based target selection.  Ultima IX had reticle-based target selection.

It's only a shooter if the player himself does the aiming, and ME didn't allow that.

[Candidate 88766]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

I thought having guns with unlimted ammo that didn't generate heat in ME1 were less consistent with the lore than heat sinks were. Also, which is more fun: holding the trigger until everything in front of you is dead, or actually having to take care where you shot in case you ran out of ammo? At least the last one added a vague element of tactics to it other than holding the trigger until nothing is left in front of you.

Since both ME and ME2 allow the player to aim while paused, that supposed "care" you take while aiming is entirely optional.

All the heat sinks did was force me to use less-preferred weapons.  In ME I basically never used anything that wasn't a sniper rifle, because I like sniper rifles (if someone would make a shooter like the original Delta Force again, I'd probably play it), but in ME2 I was constantly having to pull out other weapons because I'd run out of heat sinks.

Because of course it makes sense in the canon that Shepard can pause time to line up shots. Apart from on insanity I never ran out of ammo, but that was because I used the Widow and seeing as one shot kills nearly anything and there are never really more than 12 enemies it wasn't an issue. If there were more enemies, incinerate and Miranda's warp ability could kill anything else long before I ran out of ammo.

On an entirely different note, I remember playing Delta Force 2 years and years ago. I quite liked it even though I was terrible at it.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Then replace the word aiming with the words target selection in that.

But if you do that, you've just made every RPG with a first-person perspective a shooter.  Oblivion is reticle-based target selection.  Ultima IX had reticle-based target selection.

It's only a shooter if the player himself does the aiming, and ME didn't allow that.

Oblivion is NOT an RPG. Oblivion is a shooter with magic and swords and such. I've never played Ultima IX, so I'll take your word for it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Thats exactly why heat sinks were added:  so you can't just spam the same weapon over and over. 

I don't see why they would care how we play the game.  If was want to use different weapons, we could use different weapons.

Heat sinks were pointless.  They added nothing.  And they violated lore.

There is exactly one thing ME2 did better than ME, and that's art direction.  In every other respect, ME2 got worse.

[Candidate 88766]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Thats exactly why heat sinks were added:  so you can't just spam the same weapon over and over. 

I don't see why they would care how we play the game.  If was want to use different weapons, we could use different weapons.

Heat sinks were pointless.  They added nothing.  And they violated lore.

There is exactly one thing ME2 did better than ME, and that's art direction.  In every other respect, ME2 got worse.

Weapons with unlimted ammo that didn't overheat violated the lore far more than heat sinks did.

And that last part is purely opinion. I prefer the characters, combat, music, art direction and subplots in ME2.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Heat sinks were pointless.  They added nothing.  And they violated lore.

Violating the lore was a problem. However, what they added was a more fluid and familiar shooter UI.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There is exactly one thing ME2 did better than ME, and that's art direction.  In every other respect, ME2 got worse.

This is a rather uncharacteristic opinionated outburst from you. In ever aspect, ME2 tried to play more like a shooter than ME1 did. That's not better or worse, it's just a different type of game. One you don't like.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 07 juillet 2011 - 07:53 .

[Bnol]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well no, the thing with ME is that ME isn't and has never been an RPG.

ME's combat was exactly an RPG.  You could aim while paused, player skill didn't matter, and the resolution of the player's inputs was stat-driven.

I don't see how ME was a shooter at all.  It looked like a shooter, which is what was interesting about it, but the TPS presentation doesn't change that ME's combat was stat-driven RPG combat.

All they did was give target selection an analog shooter-like interface.

People call ME a hybrid of RPG and shooter, but I honestly don't see any shooter in it.

If you played a Soldier, which was the default choice, and likely was played by the majority of players in ME1 (don't have stats for ME1 but in ME2 it was played by more than any class combined http://xbox360.ign.c.../1117896p1.html) it was just a shooter.  You only had immunity, shield recharge and weapon powers.  While you certainly could pause to aim, you couldn't fire while paused and the enemy tended to move, so you were just playing a shooter, and a poor one at that.

Modifié par Bnol, 07 juillet 2011 - 07:52 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But you're wrong.  It wasn't aiming.  It was just target selection.

ME had RPG combat.  ME2 is the weird broken hybrid.

I'm going to disagree on that.

–verb (used with object)
1.
to position or direct (a firearm, ball, arrow, rocket, etc.) so that, on firing or release, the discharged projectile will hit a target or travel along a certain path.
http://dictionary.re....com/browse/aim

Even if you aim in the pause screen, that was still reliant on the player, not only his character. It was also up to the player to decide how many shots to fire to prevent overheating.

[the_one_54321]

Yeah, but the accuracy was still stat driven in ME1. If anything, aiming is just equivalent to target selection.

[Ace of Dawn]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yeah, but the accuracy was still stat driven in ME1. If anything, aiming is just equivalent to target selection.

But what is true aiming, then? Technically, in any game there are stats present for a gun to determine accruacy. It's just whether you can manipulate them or simply pick another gun.

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yeah, but the accuracy was still stat driven in ME1. If anything, aiming is just equivalent to target selection.

KotOR features target selection; you the player only choose what to attack. Hit chance, damage, etc, are all 100% decided by the game.
 
Even if you attempt to minimize its impact in Mass Effect, you still haven't removed the player skill. Although lessened, the game still relied on the player to line up the shot. The player is not simply designating the target; he's also deciding exactly where his character will shoot.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 juillet 2011 - 08:32 .

[Ace of Dawn]

Il Divo wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yeah, but the accuracy was still stat driven in ME1. If anything, aiming is just equivalent to target selection.

KotOR features target selection; you the player only choose what to attack. Hit chance, damage, etc, are all 100% decided by the game.
 
Even if you attempt to minimize its impact in Mass Effect, you still haven't removed the player skill. Although lessened, the game still relied on the player to line up the shot. The player is not simply designating the target; he's also deciding exactly where his character will shoot.

In summation (?):

Target Selection:
You tell the game you want to attack target, takes relevant numbers, determines if attack lands or misses, and damage done, along with any other effects involved.


Aim:
You tell the game you want to fire, it determines where projectiles will land, and then decides damage done if the game detects a hit.

In target selection, all that is really determined is the interaction between you and the target. Isolated for the most part. The game makes checks on stats and then comes back and tells you if you hit or missed.

In actually aiming (and ME), the game only determines where the bullets will land based on relevant data (true of all shooters with projectiles, ME, however, adds variables to it). In the end, however, a *projectile* is affected by the stats, and the game detects if something is hit by it. Could be what you wanted to hit, could be a crate, or another enemy, or the wall behind it.

This is how I understand the issue.

For added emphasis, in my description of the latter, you are merely affecting the projectiles path. Not it's success of performing something specific.

Modifié par Ace of Dawn, 07 juillet 2011 - 08:48 .

[MightySword]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well no, the thing with ME is that ME isn't and has never been an RPG.

ME's combat was exactly an RPG.  You could aim while paused, player skill didn't matter, and the resolution of the player's inputs was stat-driven.

I don't see how ME was a shooter at all.  It looked like a shooter, which is what was interesting about it, but the TPS presentation doesn't change that ME's combat was stat-driven RPG combat.

All they did was give target selection an analog shooter-like interface.

People call ME a hybrid of RPG and shooter, but I honestly don't see any shooter in it.

I think you just grabbing for straw here ... I haven't played ME1 for years ... but I can still remember things from top of my head on why it's a shooter.

- Cover system: what exactly a "stat" base thing in this? The action of getting into cover, stay in it, or pop out are strictly depended on player's reflex, last time I check it's something belong to shooter. What determin whether you can pop out your cover, land a shot, and get back to cover or eat a laser in the face before you can even fire a shot are 100% real time player reflex.

- You probably never use a sniper rifle in ME. While the stat effect how loose the aim is, the player still have to line up the shot. Landing a shot are not determined by chance, the stat only determine how much afford/skill a player need to hit, it does not determine the chance whether a shot will hit or not. Stat driven means character with hit cap will have a 100% chance of landing the shot, whether a character with low hit will have 50% chance. In ME, given a player with good reflex and good eye, a character with zero skill in Sniper Rifle can still have a 100% hit rate, and a poor reflex with poor eye sight  player will still miss with near max skill in Sniper Rifle. All the weapon in ME behave this way of course, Sniper rifle just server as the clearest example.

If you say you honestly don't see any shooter in it, you either grabbing for straw, or never play shooter game. If you still insit ME only have target selection instead of aiming, then I will claim with 101% confident you didn't play ME to begin with. Oh btw, the feature you keep insisting on calling target switching is actually a pretty common feature on console third person shooter (ala Gears of War), and it's called "auto-lock".

ME was just a really sluggish shooter, but a bad shooter is still a shooter ... with bringing me to this point ...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
ME had RPG combat.  ME2 is the weird broken hybrid.

Broken in what regard or standard? By a dictionary definition of combat? By a certain RPG standard define by some people (i.e you)? Because if you want to apply a strict text book definition of traditional RPG combat then claiming ME is RPG combat is nothing short of blasphemy, which will further contradict yourself. Or by something else? As far as I remember, usually when someone use the word broken, it means it doesn't do what it's supposed to do and effect the game negatively. Usally broken combat means counter intuitive control, imbalance element, sluggish, or not working as intended. If anything, the combat in ME2 is much more fluid, and it's much much more enjoyable now since it actually "works". And while I won't claim that as ultimate fact, it is the majority concession of ME2 combat. So again tell me, why is it broken? If you keep insisting on ME2 is broken comparing to ME, then I will say if being right means being bad, then it's great to be wrong.

Which bring me to the next point:

the_one_54321 wrote...
This is a rather uncharacteristic opinionated outburst from you. In ever aspect, ME2 tried to play more like a shooter than ME1 did. That's not better or worse, it's just a different type of game. One you don't like.

Amen to that.

Modifié par MightySword, 07 juillet 2011 - 09:09 .

[Il Divo]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

In summation (?):

Target Selection:
You tell the game you want to attack target, takes relevant numbers, determines if attack lands or misses, and damage done, along with any other effects involved.


Aim:
You tell the game you want to fire, it determines where projectiles will land, and then decides damage done if the game detects a hit.

In target selection, all that is really determined is the interaction between you and the target. Isolated for the most part. The game makes checks on stats and then comes back and tells you if you hit or missed.

In actually aiming (and ME), the game only determines where the bullets will land based on relevant data (true of all shooters with projectiles, ME, however, adds variables to it). In the end, however, a *projectile* is affected by the stats, and the game detects if something is hit by it. Could be what you wanted to hit, could be a crate, or another enemy, or the wall behind it.

This is how I understand the issue.

For added emphasis, in my description of the latter, you are merely affecting the projectiles path. Not it's success of performing something specific.

Far better than I could have ever said it. Eloquently put.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 juillet 2011 - 08:58 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Mass Effect 1's combat was far more broken than ME2's.

[EternalPink]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Thats exactly why heat sinks were added:  so you can't just spam the same weapon over and over. 

I don't see why they would care how we play the game.  If was want to use different weapons, we could use different weapons.

Heat sinks were pointless.  They added nothing.  And they violated lore.

There is exactly one thing ME2 did better than ME, and that's art direction.  In every other respect, ME2 got worse.

Weapons with unlimted ammo that didn't overheat violated the lore far more than heat sinks did.

And that last part is purely opinion. I prefer the characters, combat, music, art direction and subplots in ME2.

Umm why did heat sinks violate the lore?

In ME1 we are told weapons have infinite ammo since they carve a bullet of a block of polymer in the gun and accellerate it but doing this to much causes the gun to overheat which means you can't fire.

In ME2 we are told that after observing the geth using heat sinks and recognising that the side that puts more shots in the air quicker generally wins fights they decided to switch to heat sink ammo since it only takes a good soldier 1 second to change a clip but weapon overheat takes several seconds to go.

So in one game we use something, we are told the other side uses something more efficent and so we've switched to that as well, i'd call that progress not violating the lore

[sael_feman]

Here are my thoughts:

The ME2 upgrade system was 1/6, 2/6, 3/6 4/6, you need one more research point. booo!

I don't know what better way there is, but I want special mods, easter eggs which are hard to get in game... a tripod for a sniper rifle (faster firing rate, less recoil) or a hud kill counter for each level e.g. - beat your personal best. Items scavenged throughout the game brought to X engineer on X world to make permanent improvements to armour, sprint speed, adrenaline burst, or sniper scope (bullet time) for example.

The ability to purchase upgrades for skills - 35,000 credits = 2 upgrade points. (limited supply 8 in total in the game)

[sael_feman]

I meant: As well as the usual method of collecting upgrades, additional points could be purchased for a price.

[the_one_54321]

EternalPink wrote...
In ME1 we are told weapons have infinite ammo since they carve a bullet of a block of polymer in the gun and accellerate it but doing this to much causes the gun to overheat which means you can't fire.

In ME2 we are told that after observing the geth using heat sinks and recognising that the side that puts more shots in the air quicker generally wins fights they decided to switch to heat sink ammo since it only takes a good soldier 1 second to change a clip but weapon overheat takes several seconds to go.

Because a heat sink actually can't work that way. Anyone that has put a new CPU in a computer knows that the air gap is enough to render the heat sink ineffective. You need a solid fluid contact, via that thermal goop. The whole concept of a thermal clip as a heat sink is really silly. The gun overheating or needing a general cooldown time made a lot more sense internally.

[Someone With Mass]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Because a heat sink actually can't work that way. Anyone that has put a new CPU in a computer knows that the air gap is enough to render the heat sink ineffective. You need a solid fluid contact, via that thermal goop. The whole concept of a thermal clip as a heat sink is really silly. The gun overheating or needing a general cooldown time made a lot more sense internally.

Did you just compare cooling down a computer to cooling down guns that can be so hot you can literally make tea or make your lunch on its red hot barrel? 

[EternalPink]

the_one_54321 wrote...

EternalPink wrote...
In ME1 we are told weapons have infinite ammo since they carve a bullet of a block of polymer in the gun and accellerate it but doing this to much causes the gun to overheat which means you can't fire.

In ME2 we are told that after observing the geth using heat sinks and recognising that the side that puts more shots in the air quicker generally wins fights they decided to switch to heat sink ammo since it only takes a good soldier 1 second to change a clip but weapon overheat takes several seconds to go.

Because a heat sink actually can't work that way. Anyone that has put a new CPU in a computer knows that the air gap is enough to render the heat sink ineffective. You need a solid fluid contact, via that thermal goop. The whole concept of a thermal clip as a heat sink is really silly. The gun overheating or needing a general cooldown time made a lot more sense internally.

lol we are almost 200 years in the future okay they call it a thermal clip or a heat sink but that does not mean it has any relation to how heat sinks in todays computers/industry work and the goop (thermal paste) ensures there is contact between the CPU and the heat sink since if you attempted to mount the heat sink directly to the CPU you'd run the risk of having a imperfect fitting reducing conduction or damaging the CPU by having to screw something flush to it not because the thermal paste is necessary for conduction to happen.

[the_one_54321]

Someone With Mass wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Because a heat sink actually can't work that way. Anyone that has put a new CPU in a computer knows that the air gap is enough to render the heat sink ineffective. You need a solid fluid contact, via that thermal goop. The whole concept of a thermal clip as a heat sink is really silly. The gun overheating or needing a general cooldown time made a lot more sense internally.

Did you just compare cooling down a computer to cooling down guns that can be so hot you can literally make tea or make your lunch on its red hot barrel?

Thermodynamics. For something like a heat clip to possibly function correctly you would need a heat exchanger. Heat exchangers are large. And I didn't see any of the guns getting much bigger just in transition from ME1 to ME2.


edit:
Ok, before I continue on this line of discussion, I want to know who has actually had some instruction in thermodynamics. I don't have any interest in talking about this we people who have no idea what they are talking about. This way if someone corrects me, I'll at least know whether to take the person seriously or not. This is not a joke. I really want to know how much you know about thermodynamics.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 08 juillet 2011 - 12:02 .

[Gatt9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

EternalPink wrote...
In ME1 we are told weapons have infinite ammo since they carve a bullet of a block of polymer in the gun and accellerate it but doing this to much causes the gun to overheat which means you can't fire.

In ME2 we are told that after observing the geth using heat sinks and recognising that the side that puts more shots in the air quicker generally wins fights they decided to switch to heat sink ammo since it only takes a good soldier 1 second to change a clip but weapon overheat takes several seconds to go.

Because a heat sink actually can't work that way. Anyone that has put a new CPU in a computer knows that the air gap is enough to render the heat sink ineffective. You need a solid fluid contact, via that thermal goop. The whole concept of a thermal clip as a heat sink is really silly. The gun overheating or needing a general cooldown time made a lot more sense internally.

On top of that...

-The heat sinks don't actually increase the rate of fire,  it's still pretty much what I was doing in ME.

-The heat sinks don't increase damage either,  a Geth is still taking roughly the same amount of shots it did in ME.

-Suddenly heat sinks are everywhere,  on a ship that crashed years before they existed,  on collector's ships even though they had no use for them.

It was an ammo system retrofitted onto the game in order to be more like a TPS,  nothing else,  and it pretty consistently violate lore and common sense.

Which apparently they didn't learn anything from it,  'cause now we have Holographic weapons,  except Holograms by their nature aren't able to injur anything.  They're just light without significant mass.  It's like claiming the beam from a flashlight is now lethal.  Which is pretty amazing,  because I didn't think anyone could come up with anything more ridiculous than Bethseda's "Rock-it-launcher" and that teddy bear that doesn't work.  I guess I underestimated Bioware's new direction...

[Someone With Mass]

Okay, if we're going to play the lame "I know more than you" game, count me out.