310 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Again, in my opinion it failed far less than people claim it did. Personally I think alot of people got turned off by the tactical combat because they were expecting fast paced run&gun combat that didn't involve having to think at all. That works poorly in AP, and hence why the people trying that most likely got a poor experience. Because they played the game in a way it wasn't really made to be played. Angry Joes videoreview where he sits and shoots without aiming at all makes me convinced this form of behaviour is far the likely cause of the flak it got than anything else.

I agree. I also think this is somewhat the case with ME1. Both were cases of games trying to be different, but people not liking the gameplay because the look and style suggested the standard TPS model, but this was not the case. Both had stats determining their combat, and thus both punished players who would run'n'gun and/or just expect early greatness using standard TPS tactics. It wasn't that the combat style was bad, it was that it was trying to be different, and a lot of the players didn't like that difference because of their expectations and experience with standard TPS games. They went against the grain, and in a time when shooter popularity is at an all-time high and 90% of the games out there with you holding a gun play pretty much the same it simply didn't pay off and was wrongly accused of being wrong and bad.

It was wrongly being accused of being bad? Perhaps because the gameplay was simply inferior. The same tactics that got me through GoW got me through Mass Effect, except in the latter's case the experience was much easier. That didn't stop the controls from being awkward, or the gameplay from feeling lackluster. Mass Effect's attempts at "being different" didn't go anywhere, beyond bad controls.

It seems more that you just don't like that most gamers disliked Mass Effect's gameplay. So the problem must be the gamers, rather than the actual gameplay.

[Stanley Woo]

AlanC9 wrote...
Meaning the dev team discussion is OT?

Yes. as is most of the discussion centering on EA.

I presume that whether or not Alpha Protocol combat would be a good fit for ME is on-topic.

Also yes. Dang it, AlanC9, I can't put one over on you!

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote..

It was wrongly being accused of being bad? Perhaps because the gameplay was simply inferior. The same tactics that got me through GoW got me through Mass Effect, except in the latter's case the experience was much easier. That didn't stop the controls from being awkward, or the gameplay from feeling lackluster. Mass Effect's attempts at "being different" didn't go anywhere, beyond bad controls.

It seems more that you just don't like that most gamers disliked Mass Effect's gameplay. So the problem must be the gamers, rather than the actual gameplay. 

AP is my personal RPG of 2010, and an example of what DA2 could have been, indeed, should have been.  Yeah the gameplay could have used a little work.  AI was a little wonky, pistols were way overpowered.  But nothing that couldn't have been fixed in a patch.  Shooting was more skill based than most people gave it credit for.  Choices actually mattered.  It rewarded isolating and eliminating enemies in ones and twos rather than just shooting everything that moved with a BFG.  If ME3 lifts even a few ideas from AP, it will be a better game for it.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

That didn't stop the controls from being awkward, or the gameplay from feeling lackluster. Mass Effect's attempts at "being different" didn't go anywhere, beyond bad controls.

It seems more that you just don't like that most gamers disliked Mass Effect's gameplay. So the problem must be the gamers, rather than the actual gameplay.

How were the controls awkward, exactly? ME1 played pretty much like ME2 as far as controls went, it merely switched from stat-based reticule to skill-based standard TPS model. Aside from that the only real difference was you clipped to cover rather than needing to press a button. I'd even say that in some ways ME2's controls were worse with things like mapping Interact, Take Cover and Vault to the same damn keys.

The only controls in ME1 I'd consider awkward were the original 360 versions Mako controls, and the PC version fixed that (which is the one I play now).

I still maintain that ME1's gameplay was more guilty of simply not resonating with players in the immediate post Gears-era rather than being bad. It was a victim of expectations and being different in a very mainstream-driven time.

[The Spamming Troll]

Terror_K wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Again, in my opinion it failed far less than people claim it did. Personally I think alot of people got turned off by the tactical combat because they were expecting fast paced run&gun combat that didn't involve having to think at all. That works poorly in AP, and hence why the people trying that most likely got a poor experience. Because they played the game in a way it wasn't really made to be played. Angry Joes videoreview where he sits and shoots without aiming at all makes me convinced this form of behaviour is far the likely cause of the flak it got than anything else.

I agree. I also think this is somewhat the case with ME1. Both were cases of games trying to be different, but people not liking the gameplay because the look and style suggested the standard TPS model, but this was not the case. Both had stats determining their combat, and thus both punished players who would run'n'gun and/or just expect early greatness using standard TPS tactics. It wasn't that the combat style was bad, it was that it was trying to be different, and a lot of the players didn't like that difference because of their expectations and experience with standard TPS games. They went against the grain, and in a time when shooter popularity is at an all-time high and 90% of the games out there with you holding a gun play pretty much the same it simply didn't pay off and was wrongly accused of being wrong and bad.

That's not to say the combat didn't have problems in these games either, such as broken elements and poor AI. But the combat itself is only bad if you're comparing it to and expecting it to be standard TPS combat. It wasn't and wasn't trying to be. At least not fully. Fallout 3 even suffered a certain degree of flak for similar reasons because it too incorporated a hyrbid RPG/Shooter system, though not as much because it wasn't as extreme. I still don't personally see ME1's combat as being bad for using a stat-based system because the system itself is bad, but I feel its biggest weakness is actually still the narrative and context: that Shepard is supposed to be the Alliance's best, an N7 and the first human Spectre. If we had started out as Private Gumby McNewbie then it would have been fine, but we weren't. If anything was ME1's failing combat-wise it was that the mechanic didn't suit the story we were given.

im not sure what the heck you guys are talking about. are you saying ME is more tactical then other TPSs?

[FlyingWalrus]

Because there is ever a time when things aren't driven by the mainstream?

ME1 was janky as hell. The character progression was something I was completely fine with, barring the miniscule increments by which you progressed your skills and the fact that there were about twice as many levels as there needed to be, but the actual gunplay was amateurish from the AI down to the control scheme. To spin a popular buzzword, you could say that Bioware dumbed down popular FPS/TPS mechanics like reloading because they either couldn't program it properly or they didn't want to overwhelm their fanbase with too many real-time mechanics.

The gameplay mechanic changes made to ME2 were overall favorable and welcome. Now the game played more like the action-based shooter it was meant to be with RPG mechanics under the hood. A lot of those were cropped and moved around (like all damage-based skills were turned into 'research' and so on) and power development progressed a lot quicker. The bonus was that powers now evolved into one of two types, which is at least twice as many variations that those powers had in ME1 (the ones that made it over, at least). The bad thing is that that was it.

ME3 promises to have more fluid tactical movement and even stealth-based gameplay. If you think the addition of these things are bad, you need to get your head out of the grognard sewer you've been dunking it in. The character progression looks nothing short of extremely promising, and so non-linear that it has already beaten ME1's system by miles in my opinion.

ME3 will be great. Who cares if it's taking "cliché" elements from "cliché" shooters. When you're trying to make something, you look at the paragons of the field in which you are working. Then, you attempt take what they do and either do better than them or adopt what you need. To hate on an idea or think that it's "too much" because it's taken from somewhere else is idiocy, pure and simple. If it works, if it fits, then so be it.

ME3 will be great.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

How were the controls awkward, exactly? ME1 played pretty much like ME2 as far as controls went, it merely switched from stat-based reticule to skill-based standard TPS model. Aside from that the only real difference was you clipped to cover rather than needing to press a button. I'd even say that in some ways ME2's controls were worse with things like mapping Interact, Take Cover and Vault to the same damn keys.

Awkward is probably the wrong word. "More responsive" is probably a better term to describe ME2's controls, since it has the same controller functions. The layout/inclusion of mapping powers/ and improved aiming also made gameplay more fluid.  I also wasn't a fan of prolonged fire altering the targeting reticule.

I still maintain that ME1's gameplay was more guilty of simply not resonating with players in the immediate post Gears-era rather than being bad. It was a victim of expectations and being different in a very mainstream-driven time.

But what is the basis for this? That people didn't like Mass Effect's combat? Gameplay-wise Mass Effect does nothing different, beyond the inclusion of powers. Mass Effect was a victim of weak gameplay, not expectations. I did not find anything in Mass Effect that made me say "wow, innovative" as it pertained to the tps mechanics.

[AlanC9]

Hmm... did you play KotOR?

[Epic777]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Hmm... did you play KotOR?

No, i cant stand Star Wars games.
I imagine you are hinting at the story being much better than ME1s?
If so, i believe you.

The general concensus is to say KOTOR isn't is non religious blasphemy

[Il Divo]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

I have been playing GTA IV...and ME1 is a gem when it comes to smooth character and gun controls compared to at least that. When it comes to character controls when doing things as simple as walking, i actualy found Mass Effect 2s Shepard harder to control...just a bit more Wobbley.

Admittedly, I haven't played GTA IV, so I can't really comment on that. I did play III/Vice City and the controls there did feel awkward as well.

I would consider the pure "Epicness" of the first games story pretty innovative.

But the epic story doesn't make Mass Effect innovative; it makes it a good story. Every game with good features are not by necessity considered innovative. Ex: If people praise Modern Warfare 2's gameplay, that doesn't mean the gameplay is suddenly 'innovative'. And it isn't, given the similarities to MW1.

Or are you using epic in a different sense?

Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2011 - 03:17 .

[Il Divo]

Fair point. We are diverting a bit.

So, question of the day, is Bioware taking too much inspiration from cliche` shooters for ME3?

[sp0ck 06]

Il Divo wrote...

Fair point. We are diverting a bit.

So, question of the day, is Bioware taking too much inspiration from cliche` shooters for ME3?

Of course not.  ME3 isn't supposed to have a super innovative shooting system.  BioWare tried making their own, semi-unique combat system in ME1, and while it was fun at times, it was unbalanced and clunky.  

So why not just look at the best shooters and rip off their combat?  Its not like BW is taking inspiration from the story of Gears or Halo.  Ultimately, what makes ME great is the story and everything that goes along with it.  The action is just a tool to help tell the story, and the only real inspiration BW is taking from cliche shooters is in the action.

[littlezack]

 I think people stretch a bit too much with these comparisons, especially the one comparing the omni-blade to Halo 2's blade. Their functionally different, don't look similar, aren't used in a similar way...

Modifié par littlezack, 27 juillet 2011 - 03:59 .

[Kekkis]

My problem is Shepard +2 system. No matter how important the mission is, its Shepard +2 doing the job. SM was only place where rest of the team even bothered to leave Kasumi´s minibar alone and actually help Shepard.

They can try to tell me how we are fighting epic war of life and death, but if majority of missions are Shepard +2 killing Mercs in a warehouse or Shepard +2 killing Husks in tunnels it just feels small and unimportant.

I know basic system will be same as ME1 and ME2, but if rest of the team would be somewhere nearby fighting and communicating with Shep it would add atmosphere. And if there would be friendy NPCs fighting and dying around you it could give you feeling that you need to hurry, becouse people really are dying.

[AlanC9]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Hmm... did you play KotOR?

No, i cant stand Star Wars games.
I imagine you are hinting at the story being much better than ME1s?
If so, i believe you.

Better? Nah. But ME1 is pretty much a rehash of the KotOR structure.

I guess ME1 might seem kind of epic to someone who hadn't played that kind of plot before.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 juillet 2011 - 04:09 .

[Eurhetemec]

Il Divo wrote...

Fair point. We are diverting a bit.

So, question of the day, is Bioware taking too much inspiration from cliche` shooters for ME3?

I'm going to stick with my "No, definitely not" answer. Indeed, I think they could take more inspiration, yes, I said it, MORE inspiration of "cliche shooters" (still rofl at that term, it's a good one). Specifically they could steal alternate fire modes for weapons, weapon attachments that were other weapons and so on. I personally feel that ME2's combat is actually better than say, BF:BC2, but there's some stuff BW could still from games like that.

As for KotOR1/2 epic-ness, I felt that ME1 was INFINITELY more epic than either of those. I mean for god's sake, anyone who wasn't super-pumped by the whole driving the Mako through the relay, then "We're going outside.", just doesn't have any, I dunno, fun-soul or something. Nothing in KotOR1/2 was that epic. Nothing.

[JamieCOTC]

http://www.computera...ure-y-than-me2/

I read this a few days ago.  It roughly translates to "Hey, shooter fans w/ all the money, please buy our game." 

Seriously, this article does NOT make me want to buy ME3.  In fact it makes me want to cancel my pre-order. Thankfully, what I've read from Casey Hudson, Mac Walters, Patrick Weekes, Christina Norman (when she was w/ BW) and many more make wish it was March already!  I think Mr. Silverman is singing to a very specific crowd there. 

[Captain Kibosh]

Kekkis wrote...

My problem is Shepard +2 system. No matter how important the mission is, its Shepard +2 doing the job. SM was only place where rest of the team even bothered to leave Kasumi´s minibar alone and actually help Shepard.

They can try to tell me how we are fighting epic war of life and death, but if majority of missions are Shepard +2 killing Mercs in a warehouse or Shepard +2 killing Husks in tunnels it just feels small and unimportant.

I know basic system will be same as ME1 and ME2, but if rest of the team would be somewhere nearby fighting and communicating with Shep it would add atmosphere. And if there would be friendy NPCs fighting and dying around you it could give you feeling that you need to hurry, becouse people really are dying.

If any of the footage from the game play demos that have been coming out is to become part of the final product, it looks like you may get your wish, at least insofar has having other team members communicating with you.

There's one mission that seens to involve rescuing a krogan female, and Mordin Solus seems to on the field if not necessarily part of your immediate +2.  Also, I'm fairly positive in another demo (or maybe the same, they all blur together), I heard a communique from Wrex referencing the same aforementioed mission.

Obviously, who gets involved in y our field missions, directly and indirectly, would  be affected by who actually survived from your previous sequel gameplays.

[Mister Mida]

Captain Kibosh wrote...

If any of the footage from the game play demos that have been coming out is to become part of the final product, it looks like you may get your wish, at least insofar has having other team members communicating with you.

There's one mission that seens to involve rescuing a krogan female, and Mordin Solus seems to on the field if not necessarily part of your immediate +2.  Also, I'm fairly positive in another demo (or maybe the same, they all blur together), I heard a communique from Wrex referencing the same aforementioed mission.

Obviously, who gets involved in y our field missions, directly and indirectly, would  be affected by who actually survived from your previous sequel gameplays.

Neither Wrex or Mordin have been comfirmed as squaddies.