The cover system in the Mass Effect games has always been hit or miss for me. It works like it should, but it just doesn't seem as fluid as other 3rd person shooters like Gears of War. Yes, I know that Mass Effect is a totally different game, but the cover system in Gears of war is probably the best I've seen in any 3rd person shooter.
Mass Effect 1's cover system was really awkward because sometimes you couldn't tell what was cover and what wasn't. (For me anyways.) Mass Effect 2's cover system is good for the most part, but is stiff when vaulting over cover or going into new cover, and is a bit slow. I also don't like how Shepard kind of just ends up on the ground after he walks off a small ledge, instead of having a falling animation or jumping down. Hopefully Bioware is fixing this issue in Mass Effect 3 and after watching the E3 videos it looks a little bit better, especially with the addition of rolling. Any thoughts?
Mass Effect could learn from Gears of War
Débuté par
GarrusIsMyBro
, août 14 2011 02:46
Retour en haut
#2
Posté 14 août 2011 - 02:47
crimzontearz
-
- Members
- 16 779 messages
watch the E3 vieos, you will see cover-to-cover has been made more fluid in ME3.
Cover is not where ME should learn from GoW in my opinion
Cover is not where ME should learn from GoW in my opinion
Modifié par crimzontearz, 14 août 2011 - 02:49 .
#3
Posté 14 août 2011 - 02:59
Esquin
-
- Members
- 709 messages
The Gears of War gameplay is possible the most broken mess of a system i've ever had the misfortune of playing. Granted I only played the first game, but that was enough for me. No game can learn from it, no game should emulate it. The ME systems need tweeks here and there like any game, but using Gears of War as some shining example is just flat out wrong.
#4
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:01
The Baconer
-
- Members
- 5 678 messages
Gears of War does have the tightest and smoothest control out of any cover-based TPS. It's unfortunate that the net-coding wasn't handled with the same finesse, in the first two games anyway.
#5
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:06
sbvera13
-
- Members
- 432 messages
I've never understood the whole cover system thing anyway. What happened to crouching behind a box and using good ol' LOS? Boom, cover. Been doing it since 1995, works great. Now we have to click, hope the dimensions are just right for the game to recognize it as a valid cover location, and likewise hope you are facing the same direction... etc. Basically we deal with quirky mechanics that in the end do nothing but take control away from the player. I hate the whole shebang really.
#6
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:09
The Baconer
-
- Members
- 5 678 messages
sbvera13 wrote...
I've never understood the whole cover system thing anyway. What happened to crouching behind a box and using good ol' LOS? Boom, cover. Been doing it since 1995, works great. Now we have to click, hope the dimensions are just right for the game to recognize it as a valid cover location, and likewise hope you are facing the same direction... etc. Basically we deal with quirky mechanics that in the end do nothing but take control away from the player. I hate the whole shebang really.
You can still take cover 'manually', around walls anyway.
#7
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:10
MasterShepardN7
-
- Members
- 365 messages
They're fixing it in ME3. From what I've seen so far in demos, at E3, etc. it looks fine. Mind you it isn't the final finished product, but they listen to the fans and make things better based off their critiques of the game and with problems they have.
#8
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:10
In Exile
-
- Members
- 28 738 messages
sbvera13 wrote...
I've never understood the whole cover system thing anyway. What happened to crouching behind a box and using good ol' LOS? Boom, cover. Been doing it since 1995, works great. Now we have to click, hope the dimensions are just right for the game to recognize it as a valid cover location, and likewise hope you are facing the same direction... etc. Basically we deal with quirky mechanics that in the end do nothing but take control away from the player. I hate the whole shebang really.
The difference is the 3rd person perspective. You don't have real LOS in a third person shooter without cover, because the animations look ridiculous.
#9
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:12
Ashathor
-
- Members
- 99 messages
I have no idea how GoW's cover system works, but from what I've seen of ME3 it looks to have a cover system closer to Splinter Cell: Conviction which imo had the best cover system I've experienced in all the games I've played.
#10
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:19
sbvera13
-
- Members
- 432 messages
In Exile wrote...
The difference is the 3rd person perspective. You don't have real LOS in a third person shooter without cover, because the animations look ridiculous.
So it's just a gimmick after all. I was afraid of that. Truth be told, first time I came accross it (ME1 actually) I thought that it was ideal for a squad based tactical shooter. ME1 showed signs of going that way, but obviously didn't do it very well. ME2 actually went to pretty extreme measures to de-emphasize your squad, so I figured it was just an oogle over yourself kind of thing. I'd be interested to hear how other games handle it, since thus far I've avoided them like a bad mime.
#11
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:20
Rahmiel
-
- Members
- 591 messages
I have to say, I really enjoyed GoW when it came out and had a blast. GoW2, I didn't like nearly as much. I also hate the games for their dialogue and "over the top"ness.. which is what they were made to do, but guess I'm just not a fan. Funny thing though, I love borderlands.
#12
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:25
Clonedzero
-
- Members
- 3 153 messages
yeah, watching the released demos and videos of ME3 so far it looks like they absolutely took some tips from gears.
cover to cover, the fluidity of it all. looks great actually. im looking forward to the combat in ME3.
cover to cover, the fluidity of it all. looks great actually. im looking forward to the combat in ME3.
#13
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:26
GarrusIsMyBro
-
- Members
- 539 messages
Memmahkth wrote...
I have to say, I really enjoyed GoW when it came out and had a blast. GoW2, I didn't like nearly as much. I also hate the games for their dialogue and "over the top"ness.. which is what they were made to do, but guess I'm just not a fan. Funny thing though, I love borderlands.
I too know what you mean. Gears of war 1 was an absolute blast to play, but the story is waaaay to over the top.
#14
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:29
ChyronBlue
-
- Members
- 64 messages
GoW's cover system is the best thing it has honestly, and I play all the games. ME should copy it immediately.
#15
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:34
Heather Cline
-
- Members
- 2 822 messages
Sorry but I think ME should stay ME and GoW should stay GoW. Emulating one game or the other causes problems. Case in point, ME2 went the route of more third person shooter and less rpg elements. Many people complained.
DA2 tried to bring in a larger crowd by emulating other games or adding things others on this forum have raged and gotten angry about. End result DA2 was rushed, unfinished, and flopped badly.
Emulating another game, copying another game is not the way to go. Instead keep ME as ME and leave it at that.
DA2 tried to bring in a larger crowd by emulating other games or adding things others on this forum have raged and gotten angry about. End result DA2 was rushed, unfinished, and flopped badly.
Emulating another game, copying another game is not the way to go. Instead keep ME as ME and leave it at that.
#16
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:46
Il Divo
-
- Members
- 9 753 messages
Heather Cline wrote...
Sorry but I think ME should stay ME and GoW should stay GoW. Emulating one game or the other causes problems. Case in point, ME2 went the route of more third person shooter and less rpg elements. Many people complained.
Define many people.
#17
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:51
dafatcat
-
- Members
- 58 messages
Il Divo wrote...
Heather Cline wrote...
Sorry but I think ME should stay ME and GoW should stay GoW. Emulating one game or the other causes problems. Case in point, ME2 went the route of more third person shooter and less rpg elements. Many people complained.
Define many people.
A lot of BSN people think ME1 was better than ME2 (but only when it's fashionable to do so of course)
#18
Posté 14 août 2011 - 03:54
Il Divo
-
- Members
- 9 753 messages
dafatcat wrote...
A lot of BSN people think ME1 was better than ME2 (but only when it's fashionable to do so of course)
That is a possibility. But then alot of BSN people also think ME2 was better than ME1. It's not something that can be proven simply by looking at all the complaint/comparison threads on these forums.
Also keep in mind that these forums do not represent even 1% of the total Bioware fan base, at least according to Bioware.
Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2011 - 03:54 .
#19
Posté 14 août 2011 - 04:12
Shimmer_Gloom
-
- Members
- 573 messages
ME2 was a better game than ME1. But ME1 was less ambitous. And was a simpler game. I think me3 will be just fine as it seems to be even more ambitous than me2 but it has all the work they did on me2 to back it up.
Def excited.
Def excited.
#20
Posté 14 août 2011 - 04:14
Humanoid_Typhoon
-
- Members
- 4 735 messages
I think every game with a cover system can learn from BREACH,that games cover system is flawless.
#21
Posté 14 août 2011 - 04:16
Clonedzero
-
- Members
- 3 153 messages
ME2 didnt get less rpg elements because it was trying to be a better 3rd person shooter. it had less rpg elements because alot of the rpg elements in ME1 were flat out bad. (inventory system being a good example)Heather Cline wrote...
Sorry but I think ME should stay ME and GoW should stay GoW. Emulating one game or the other causes problems. Case in point, ME2 went the route of more third person shooter and less rpg elements. Many people complained.
DA2 tried to bring in a larger crowd by emulating other games or adding things others on this forum have raged and gotten angry about. End result DA2 was rushed, unfinished, and flopped badly.
Emulating another game, copying another game is not the way to go. Instead keep ME as ME and leave it at that.
a action rpg like mass effect is not going to be worse because it takes cues from shooters to make its combat better.
you're putting a connection between two things where there isnt really one. if they wanted to keep all the rpg elements of ME1 in ME2 with the same combat, they easily could have.
#22
Posté 14 août 2011 - 04:22
shepskisaac
-
- Members
- 16 374 messages
Compared to ME, GOW series has such a simple, basic gameplay that it ain't surprising it's 1 aspect the entire game revolves around is polished to the maximum. The combat in ME is good enough and will be even better in ME3. They should focus on other aspect of the game.
#23
Posté 14 août 2011 - 04:33
AdmiralCheez
-
- Members
- 12 990 messages
As many have said, the cover system looks like it's been improved.
Now, let's talk about squadmates. It's a party-based combat system, damn it! Are they finally going to be more than accessories in the field?
Now, let's talk about squadmates. It's a party-based combat system, damn it! Are they finally going to be more than accessories in the field?
#24
Posté 14 août 2011 - 04:42
RPGamer13
-
- Members
- 2 258 messages
The cover system has already been changed to the Gears of War cover system. Though it remains to be seen if the A button will have all the same functions it does in Gears of War.
And Borderlands 2 is going for more over-the-topness!
Memmahkth wrote...
I have to say, I really enjoyed GoW when it came out and had a blast. GoW2, I didn't like nearly as much. I also hate the games for their dialogue and "over the top"ness.. which is what they were made to do, but guess I'm just not a fan. Funny thing though, I love borderlands.
And Borderlands 2 is going for more over-the-topness!
#25
Posté 14 août 2011 - 05:17
Bluko
-
- Members
- 1 737 messages
If Mass Effect is going to learn about " how to do it" for a cover system I would suggest Red Faction: Guerilla. Not Gears of War. While I enjoy the Gears games for what they are... the cover system it uses is far from ideal.
In RF: Guerilla you can literally take cover behind anything in the environment that has enough surface. Crates, walls, buildings, and even vehicles. Yep that's right you can get out of your truck and take cover behind it. Now that's a good cover system. You aren't forced to take cover behind some big chest high cinder block a Dev added for that very purpose. In RF you take cover only when and where you need to. The cover system is only there to help you from getting your butt shot off needlessly. And the best part is if any enemy is hiding in bunker or behind a wall you just use a rocket/remote charge to blow it away.
Problem with Gears of War and ME2 for me is that the cover in these games isn't really "cover". They are shooting platforms which generally make you nigh-invincible. Seriously there's no way you can lose against any enemy in ME2 as long as you got a piece of cover in front of you and inbetween them. I don't like it because I feel it cheapens the experience in that you can just cower behind a rock/crate and take down a YMIR Mech with a Pistol of all things. Nevermind the fact that rockets can't seem to do squat against you while you're squatting. Maybe you didn't like ME1's "sticky" surfaces but at least rockets and grenades could hurt things out of direct LOS. Only thing like that in ME2 is Harbinger's Fireball o Doom and Shockwave sort of.
I like to be able to move freely when I want without ducking behind some piece of cover every 10 seconds because my shields are made of paper. Why can't I just freely navigate between cover in the environment without activating the magnet on my back? I mean you can't really even move between cover without getting your shields torn down because apparently all enemies are perfect marksmen. Basically ME2 is a game about going from cover spot to cover spot. You can't really flank or outmaneuver enemies as they have perfect situational awareness and you'll die without nearby crate. I dunno what it is about ME2... perhaps it's the levels or A.I. etc. but to me it lacks the tactical depth ME1 had. I'd say ME2 has better pacing but it's just made too simple by the cover system and stationary A.I.
In RF: Guerilla you can literally take cover behind anything in the environment that has enough surface. Crates, walls, buildings, and even vehicles. Yep that's right you can get out of your truck and take cover behind it. Now that's a good cover system. You aren't forced to take cover behind some big chest high cinder block a Dev added for that very purpose. In RF you take cover only when and where you need to. The cover system is only there to help you from getting your butt shot off needlessly. And the best part is if any enemy is hiding in bunker or behind a wall you just use a rocket/remote charge to blow it away.
Problem with Gears of War and ME2 for me is that the cover in these games isn't really "cover". They are shooting platforms which generally make you nigh-invincible. Seriously there's no way you can lose against any enemy in ME2 as long as you got a piece of cover in front of you and inbetween them. I don't like it because I feel it cheapens the experience in that you can just cower behind a rock/crate and take down a YMIR Mech with a Pistol of all things. Nevermind the fact that rockets can't seem to do squat against you while you're squatting. Maybe you didn't like ME1's "sticky" surfaces but at least rockets and grenades could hurt things out of direct LOS. Only thing like that in ME2 is Harbinger's Fireball o Doom and Shockwave sort of.
I like to be able to move freely when I want without ducking behind some piece of cover every 10 seconds because my shields are made of paper. Why can't I just freely navigate between cover in the environment without activating the magnet on my back? I mean you can't really even move between cover without getting your shields torn down because apparently all enemies are perfect marksmen. Basically ME2 is a game about going from cover spot to cover spot. You can't really flank or outmaneuver enemies as they have perfect situational awareness and you'll die without nearby crate. I dunno what it is about ME2... perhaps it's the levels or A.I. etc. but to me it lacks the tactical depth ME1 had. I'd say ME2 has better pacing but it's just made too simple by the cover system and stationary A.I.
