78 réponses à ce sujet

[True Zarken]

Icinix wrote...

Bluko wrote...

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.

Yep.

This is fantastic.

+1

[azerSheppard]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Weird. because I see it as GoW having to learn from ME2. Seriously, 3 games with the same gameplay. What a bunch of lazy ****s.

Hey now, don't blame Epic for getting it right on their first go.

Agreed.  


Also check out the orignal Deus Ex, it's 3 times the rpg ME is, and is still pretty much a shooter.

More shooting =/= less rpg

[Someone With Mass]

Rockworm503 wrote...

This is the mentality that needs to go away IMO.
More shooter = less RPG.
For many players they can't coexist together and that makes me sad.. Why can't we have a good RPG with good shooting?
I think ME2 went the right direction but obviously some think that the shooting mechanics are done right that RPG is gone.
And yet people complain there isn't enough innovation in the industry.  How do you think innovation works?  by taking concepts and changing or putting them together.

The funny thing is that there are game that are doing the RPG and shooter thing pretty well, like Fallout 3 and New Vegas and Borderlands.

I have never understod how a game can be less of an RPG just because it happens to do the shooter part well or is copying some of it from other games that did well. It doesn't mean that the developer is focusing less on the RPG.

And honestly, I think ME3 will be more of an RPG than ME1, based on what I've seen and heard.

[Rockworm503]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

ThePwener wrote...

Weird. because I see it as GoW having to learn from ME2. Seriously, 3 games with the same gameplay. What a bunch of lazy ****s.

Hey now, don't blame Epic for getting it right on their first go.

This ^^ Gears of War was established as a fast paced cover shooter and thats it.
ME is a RPG shooter and has a lot more to work at to show both sides.
Pure RPG players are complaing theres not enough RPG
Pure Shooter players are complaing the shooting isn't as good as it could be.
Imagine if both parts were done flawlessly.

[Someone With Mass]

azerSheppard wrote...

Agreed.  


Also check out the orignal Deus Ex, it's 3 times the rpg ME is, and is still pretty much a shooter.

More shooting =/= less rpg

Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to Human Revolution, which seems to be doing a nice mix between shooter and RPG.

[Rockworm503]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

This is the mentality that needs to go away IMO.
More shooter = less RPG.
For many players they can't coexist together and that makes me sad.. Why can't we have a good RPG with good shooting?
I think ME2 went the right direction but obviously some think that the shooting mechanics are done right that RPG is gone.
And yet people complain there isn't enough innovation in the industry.  How do you think innovation works?  by taking concepts and changing or putting them together.

The funny thing is that there are game that are doing the RPG and shooter thing pretty well, like Fallout 3 and New Vegas and Borderlands.

I have never understod how a game can be less of an RPG just because it happens to do the shooter part well or is copying some of it from other games that did well. It doesn't mean that the developer is focusing less on the RPG.

And honestly, I think ME3 will be more of an RPG than ME1, based on what I've seen and heard.

Its no wonder I love those games.  I guess I like the shooter RPG style.  Although Mass Effect is different with the 3rd person view and being a trilogy instead of keeping the story in one game.  Whatever happens I am confident that it can only go up with this franchise

[cyclopsgd]

Ashathor wrote...

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.

splinter cells cover system is just like gear except the gears one was made first and it's more flueny

[azerSheppard]

Someone With Mass wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

Agreed.  


Also check out the orignal Deus Ex, it's 3 times the rpg ME is, and is still pretty much a shooter.

More shooting =/= less rpg

Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to Human Revolution, which seems to be doing a nice mix between shooter and RPG.

AMEN

My Belgian ass is getting the benelux edition, it's the only non-standard version we will have, and i believe the ingame items will be exclusive to us:pinched:

[ThanesSniper]

Did the Gears of War system have arrows pointing which way you would roll? It seems to me that ME3 is taking more inspiration from Splinter Cell: Convcition. Which is great, because that game was fantastic. Not only could you roll from spot to spot, but you could go around one piece of cover while remaining behind it, which was excellent for the stealth gameplay.

[DRUNK_CANADIAN]

Esquin wrote...

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.

Truer words have never been spoken...there is absolutely nothing I can see ME gleaning from Gears....other than using it as a "what not to do" example.

[Sharn01]

No idea about other games but I did not like ME2's cover system. The player was basically a wet paper bag who was indestructible behind so much as a pane of glass, which would absorb rockets but shatter if a guy was pushed into it, both situations are rediculous. The characters should be able to take much more of a beating, and cover should have ratings and break down if you stay behind it to long, that may be asking to much from a game, but making the player more durable and forcing him/her to move from cover to cover more often that isn't so close together would be a good thing.

As an afterthought get rid of all the explosive crates and canisters as well, they have a use in some areas but shouldn't be laying everywhere in the galaxy.

[Kaiser Shepard]

azerSheppard wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to Human Revolution, which seems to be doing a nice mix between shooter and RPG.

AMEN

My Belgian ass is getting the benelux edition, it's the only non-standard version we will have, and i believe the ingame items will be exclusive to us:pinched:

Bol shows that we're getting getting the Augmented Edition as well, and it also has a 100 euro Collector's Edition listed (albeit currently only for PS3).

As awesome as that game looks, though, I'd argue against getting it on day one; such a niche game will sell terribly over here, leading to it being priced down to 20/30 within two months.

[RPGamer13]

Aside from what they've already taken from Gears of War 2 and 3, which includes infinite running, the over the top weapons like Borderlands 2 will have.

Izhalezan wrote...

I enjoy the games, but for the life of me can't seem to follow the story... things jsut happen and the general tone is "You know this already!" are there books or something I should be reading to catch up?

There are books, but I haven't read them so I don't know if they explain anything.

Only question I have is: how did the locust come to be?

They appear to be mutated humans, but what caused the mutation?

side note: could use more female characters like the Locust Queen (Carolyn Seymoure voices her like she does Dr. Chakwas.

Theunsunghero26 wrote...

Gears is the most pollished 3rd person shooter out there (though like Issacshep said, its shooting is its primary mechanic,so it had better be) and many games, including Mass Effect have tried to use a similar system. Mass Effect 3 looks much better in combat then ME2 because it's taken alot of ideas from Gears.

That's exactly how I feel.  I honestly don't play shooters that much and the ones I do, I play because I like the story and/or they are RPGs too.

Perfect Dark Zero
Mass Effect
Gears of War (the upcoming third one especially, the Retro Lancer helped with that)
Borderlands

Rockworm503 wrote...

Its no wonder I love those games.  I guess I like the shooter RPG style.  Although Mass Effect is different with the 3rd person view and being a trilogy instead of keeping the story in one game.  Whatever happens I am confident that it can only go up with this franchise

Actually, there's going to be a Borderlands 2 and it continues the story of the first game.

And the other two: they don't interest me.  I tried Fallout 3 and I thought it was horrible, how they handled the pausing and selecting attacks and what happens after that.  Then the melee weapon system was horrible even in real time....

[cocla]

I couldnt disagree more, the ME2 cover system was basically the GoW cover system, and the ME2 cover was heavily flawed. For one thing, the 'Oh, there is some cover, here comes a fight' hurt the flow of the game, and GoW is all over that. Otherwise I just dont like the system, I cant seem to put it to words right now, but it just bugs me.

Dont get me wrong, I like GoW, but it cant really be held up as a great standard for anything, except creative and entertaining use of gore. Which I highly approve of!

[Gatt9]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

This is the mentality that needs to go away IMO.
More shooter = less RPG.
For many players they can't coexist together and that makes me sad.. Why can't we have a good RPG with good shooting?
I think ME2 went the right direction but obviously some think that the shooting mechanics are done right that RPG is gone.
And yet people complain there isn't enough innovation in the industry.  How do you think innovation works?  by taking concepts and changing or putting them together.

The funny thing is that there are game that are doing the RPG and shooter thing pretty well, like Fallout 3 and New Vegas and Borderlands.

I have never understod how a game can be less of an RPG just because it happens to do the shooter part well or is copying some of it from other games that did well. It doesn't mean that the developer is focusing less on the RPG.

And honestly, I think ME3 will be more of an RPG than ME1, based on what I've seen and heard.

Mmm...The reason it's less of an RPG is because an RPG is defined by Character based skill,  the whole intent of an RPG is that you and your character are relatively seperate and your personal skill is irrelevant.

That said,  Fallout 3: New Vegas isn't a terrible take on combining the two,  because it does do well with the seperation outside of combat.  New Vegas is a great deal closer to being an RPG than ME2 was.

But it does mean that they're focusing less on the RPG part,  because in general they're excising a major component of RPG's,  the Character's skill in combat in favor of implementing the gameplay from another genre,  which ultimately skews the experience a great deal more towards the Shooter side than an RPG.  It also makes you question why they even bother putting in RPG elements when they remove all meaning from it,  what's the point of a leveling mechanic when combat is all about your skill?  It's redundant,  they can excise the whole system and replace it with something more elegant instead of trying to find a way to shoehorn another acronym on the box.

Again,  ME2's a great example,  the whole leveling mechanic could've been completely excised without any change in the game,  or they could've implemented a "1 point per mission completion" scheme and had the same result without pretending there was an RPG in there.

[Rockworm503]

Gatt9 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

This is the mentality that needs to go away IMO.
More shooter = less RPG.
For many players they can't coexist together and that makes me sad.. Why can't we have a good RPG with good shooting?
I think ME2 went the right direction but obviously some think that the shooting mechanics are done right that RPG is gone.
And yet people complain there isn't enough innovation in the industry.  How do you think innovation works?  by taking concepts and changing or putting them together.

The funny thing is that there are game that are doing the RPG and shooter thing pretty well, like Fallout 3 and New Vegas and Borderlands.

I have never understod how a game can be less of an RPG just because it happens to do the shooter part well or is copying some of it from other games that did well. It doesn't mean that the developer is focusing less on the RPG.

And honestly, I think ME3 will be more of an RPG than ME1, based on what I've seen and heard.

Mmm...The reason it's less of an RPG is because an RPG is defined by Character based skill,  the whole intent of an RPG is that you and your character are relatively seperate and your personal skill is irrelevant.

That said,  Fallout 3: New Vegas isn't a terrible take on combining the two,  because it does do well with the seperation outside of combat.  New Vegas is a great deal closer to being an RPG than ME2 was.

But it does mean that they're focusing less on the RPG part,  because in general they're excising a major component of RPG's,  the Character's skill in combat in favor of implementing the gameplay from another genre,  which ultimately skews the experience a great deal more towards the Shooter side than an RPG.  It also makes you question why they even bother putting in RPG elements when they remove all meaning from it,  what's the point of a leveling mechanic when combat is all about your skill?  It's redundant,  they can excise the whole system and replace it with something more elegant instead of trying to find a way to shoehorn another acronym on the box.

Again,  ME2's a great example,  the whole leveling mechanic could've been completely excised without any change in the game,  or they could've implemented a "1 point per mission completion" scheme and had the same result without pretending there was an RPG in there.

So basically a traditional leveling system is an RPG.
Its not the story telling in anyway.  You wouldn't tell the difference between ME2 and GoW because 1 you know gives you choices in dialog and how to proceed and the other has cutscenes and thats it?

[The Spamming Troll]

Bluko wrote...

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.

army of two also has a freeplay cover system like your describing.

i wonder what red factions destructible environments would do for my adepts gameplay.

[azerSheppard]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

azerSheppard wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to Human Revolution, which seems to be doing a nice mix between shooter and RPG.

AMEN

My Belgian ass is getting the benelux edition, it's the only non-standard version we will have, and i believe the ingame items will be exclusive to us:pinched:

Bol shows that we're getting getting the Augmented Edition as well, and it also has a 100 euro Collector's Edition listed (albeit currently only for PS3).

As awesome as that game looks, though, I'd argue against getting it on day one; such a niche game will sell terribly over here, leading to it being priced down to 20/30 within two months.

Here is the problem, there are only 10 days left until release, all special editions (benelux and augmented edition) have been preordered, and are geting sold for the same price as the standard edition. 

Now i'm all in for a 40€ buy, but i can't lower my support for a company that made an exclusive version for the benelux, this NEVER happens, not even with Belgian/Dutch produced games.


Anyway, the game has been getting it's big share of hype over here, many Belgians remember the original, Eidos is a legend over here:lol:

Modifié par azerSheppard, 15 août 2011 - 02:18 .

[Clonedzero]

rofl since when was boarderlands an rpg? thats a straight up shooter with leveling and a randomized loot system lol.

barely had any story to speak of. all the characters were just "pick up mindless MMO style quests here".

[lazuli]

ThanesSniper wrote...

Did the Gears of War system have arrows pointing which way you would roll? It seems to me that ME3 is taking more inspiration from Splinter Cell: Convcition. Which is great, because that game was fantastic. Not only could you roll from spot to spot, but you could go around one piece of cover while remaining behind it, which was excellent for the stealth gameplay.

Yes.  The Gears of War system features a little icon that will appear at the bottom of your screen as you tilt the directional stick to indicate in what ways your character will move (up and over, roll, etc).  This is different from ME3 in that ME3's system features arrows and other displays projected onto the environment.

The Conviction method took some getting used to, but it served the stealth game fairly well, as you mention.  I prefer Gears' style, though, for a game with combat like Mass Effect 2.

[azerSheppard]

Clonedzero wrote...

rofl since when was boarderlands an rpg? thats a straight up shooter with leveling and a randomized loot system lol.

barely had any story to speak of. all the characters were just "pick up mindless MMO style quests here".

Apperently you only revently started playing rpgs, because the "pick up mindless mmo style quests here" are basicaly what rpgs where in the 80's and early 90's, a subgenre called dungeon crawling. Now Borderlands did this all, "going into dungeons, killing everything and picking up loot" just like it was done in the old days, cept it was guised as a shooter.


Story =/= RPG

[green_lemur]

I like halo's cover system. crouch behind a box, very simple.

[Jonathan Shepard]

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.

Agreed, whole-heartedly.

[Izhalezan]

One thing from Gears I'd definitely like is revive, I've always hated that if you go down but your squad is up it's still GG, yet if any of them die you can get em back up anytime you want, I don't like the lack of power your squad has in that regard.