680 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

"Combat rolls" are pathetic Hollywood bullcrap.

They still make the combat better, and more fun. It increase fluidity of combat.

What's "fun" about a facepalm and eyeroll inducing element being hardcoded into the combat?  Doing goofy acrobatics in a gunfight is just a good way to get shot. 

Rolling from cover to cover is faster than standing up, walking over to the next piece of cover, and then squatting down.

Anyways, you seem to be one of those people who pointlessly criticises shooters because they are shooters. Your opinion will obviously not be dissuaded, so there's not much else to say.

I have been in the military for a couple of years. One thing you don't do is rolling around. You run, cover. But you are not rolling around unless you are actor in a movie. You wear all kind of equipment including a helmet, that may average at 50 to 70 lbs (30kg). Do you really think rolling around in this gear will give you any advantage? It will rather leave you hurting yourself or losing sense of orientation. I know I said GoW is more realistic than ME, but not in this regard. Most realistic would be to run in half-high position as fast as you can and keep your head down as much as possible. Crawling is also very efficient if your goal is to stay alive. More than any so-called combat rolls.

[Killjoy Cutter]

The Spetnaz thing is part of a technique taught around the quirk / limitations of the AK-series weapons. They wouldn't do it if not for that.

[111987]

AlexXIV wrote...


I have been in the military for a couple of years. One thing you don't do is rolling around. You run, cover. But you are not rolling around unless you are actor in a movie. You wear all kind of equipment including a helmet, that may average at 50 to 70 lbs (30kg). Do you really think rolling around in this gear will give you any advantage? It will rather leave you hurting yourself or losing sense of orientation. I know I said GoW is more realistic than ME, but not in this regard. Most realistic would be to run in half-high position as fast as you can and keep your head down as much as possible. Crawling is also very efficient if your goal is to stay alive. More than any so-called combat rolls.

I am not arguing that it is realistic. I'm saying it enhances the gameplay because your character doesn't feel as stiff in combat. I'm sure in the military you were also taught not to run or move quickly when shooting, but ultimately that wouldn't improve the gameplay. Gears of War 3's combat is far more fluid and entertaining then say, Resident Evil 5's combat.

[KSRT8]

I like Mass Effect for an rpg, but hands down Halo is still the best shooter in my personal opinion. And besides that Gears Of War is all about the shotgun. I wonder how Mass Effect 3 will compete with Halo 4 when it finally comes out?

[Killjoy Cutter]

Your character doing idiotic, counter-intuitive things doesn't enhance the gameplay.

(And actually, there is a technique for firing while moving quickly, and it's done all the time in combat.)

[Jaron Oberyn]

Mass Effect needs a constipated protagonist in order to surpass GoW. It's clearly the only thing gears has over ME.

-Polite

[AlexXIV]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

"Combat rolls" are pathetic Hollywood bullcrap.

They still make the combat better, and more fun. It increase fluidity of combat.

What's "fun" about a facepalm and eyeroll inducing element being hardcoded into the combat?  Doing goofy acrobatics in a gunfight is just a good way to get shot. 

Rolling from cover to cover is faster than standing up, walking over to the next piece of cover, and then squatting down.

Anyways, you seem to be one of those people who pointlessly criticises shooters because they are shooters. Your opinion will obviously not be dissuaded, so there's not much else to say.

No, I pointedly criticize games that include idiotic elements.

No one in real life rolls around from cover to cover. 

There are a lot of things in Mass Effect that people don't do in real life.

Sometimes realism has to be sacrificed for the sake of fun, seamless gameplay. Otherwise, as soon as your shields are down, the next bullet ought to reduce you to a bloody pulp. Your squadmates would all suffer permanent deaths, Biotics could only launch 2 or 3 attacks before reaching exhausation, etc...

You see how silly the realism argument is?

You have a point with realism. It is a game, so there is not really need for overly realistic stuff. But one point of playing GoW rather than ME is that combat is more realistic. Just saying. Instead of combat rolls I would just prefer the option to sprint. Much like you do in ME already, just not upright but in a more half-high position (not sure how to say that in english) and just rush from cover to cover. I could also argue that in ME you have shields and better armor than in GoW so you don't even need to cover all the time. I mean what's the point to run into cover if you can just stand there and aim at your enemy while your shields and armor takes care of enemy fire. The only reason to cover is to avoid being shot, not it being fun. Even though of course in a game it should be about fun,

[Killjoy Cutter]

KSRT8 wrote...

I like Mass Effect for an rpg, but hands down Halo is still the best shooter in my personal opinion. And besides that Gears Of War is all about the shotgun. I wonder how Mass Effect 3 will compete with Halo 4 when it finally comes out?

Unfortunately HALO, at least when I tired it on the xBox, used the gooftastic setup common to most xBox shooters, where one stick controls the direction of movement and the other controls the direction of facing, and the two are entirely unlinked.

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

"Combat rolls" are pathetic Hollywood bullcrap.

They still make the combat better, and more fun. It increase fluidity of combat.

What's "fun" about a facepalm and eyeroll inducing element being hardcoded into the combat?  Doing goofy acrobatics in a gunfight is just a good way to get shot. 

Rolling from cover to cover is faster than standing up, walking over to the next piece of cover, and then squatting down.

Anyways, you seem to be one of those people who pointlessly criticises shooters because they are shooters. Your opinion will obviously not be dissuaded, so there's not much else to say.

No, I pointedly criticize games that include idiotic elements.

No one in real life rolls around from cover to cover. 

There are a lot of things in Mass Effect that people don't do in real life.

Sometimes realism has to be sacrificed for the sake of fun, seamless gameplay. Otherwise, as soon as your shields are down, the next bullet ought to reduce you to a bloody pulp. Your squadmates would all suffer permanent deaths, Biotics could only launch 2 or 3 attacks before reaching exhausation, etc...

You see how silly the realism argument is?

To repeat myself, "(And if you're thinking of replying with "But no one in real life does ______ regarding any element of the ME setting, then you're missing the damn point completely.) "

[whywhywhywhy]

I skipped to the last page because after giving this great thought for quite a while I have the answer.  In my 10 seconds of pondering I realized it would take 3 simple things:

1.  Cliffy B. needs to gather his team and make the move to bioware.
2.  Bioware would need to go independant or get bought by....MS.
3.  Wait 3 -5 years for them to get it right.

[AlexXIV]

111987 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...


I have been in the military for a couple of years. One thing you don't do is rolling around. You run, cover. But you are not rolling around unless you are actor in a movie. You wear all kind of equipment including a helmet, that may average at 50 to 70 lbs (30kg). Do you really think rolling around in this gear will give you any advantage? It will rather leave you hurting yourself or losing sense of orientation. I know I said GoW is more realistic than ME, but not in this regard. Most realistic would be to run in half-high position as fast as you can and keep your head down as much as possible. Crawling is also very efficient if your goal is to stay alive. More than any so-called combat rolls.

I am not arguing that it is realistic. I'm saying it enhances the gameplay because your character doesn't feel as stiff in combat. I'm sure in the military you were also taught not to run or move quickly when shooting, but ultimately that wouldn't improve the gameplay. Gears of War 3's combat is far more fluid and entertaining then say, Resident Evil 5's combat.

Yeah I agree with you if you said it could be more fun than in ME. But I dunno, not being a shooter player,etc. I found the ME combat fun and not lacking. But maybe I just don't know what I miss.

[Killjoy Cutter]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

KSRT8 wrote...

I like Mass Effect for an rpg, but hands down Halo is still the best shooter in my personal opinion. And besides that Gears Of War is all about the shotgun. I wonder how Mass Effect 3 will compete with Halo 4 when it finally comes out?

Unfortunately HALO, at least when I tired it on the xBox, used the gooftastic setup common to most xBox shooters, where one stick controls the direction of movement and the other controls the direction of facing, and the two are entirely unlinked.

Kind of like how the PC does?

So HALO controls the same way on the PC?  

[TheIdiocyWizard]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The Spetnaz thing is part of a technique taught around the quirk / limitations of the AK-series weapons. They wouldn't do it if not for that.

Regardless, it is still done in real life.

Anyway, why are we arguing about this. It may not be "realistic", but having the capability to do it fulfils a purpose, which is to make the gameplay fun and thrilling. As long as you enjoy it then it doesn't really matter, but seeing as you don't enjoy it, then deal with it. Don't play the game if it not being realistic makes it that bad. I can tell you that it's not going to change, so sitting here and complaing about it really won't accomplish anything.

[111987]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


To repeat myself, "(And if you're thinking of replying with "But no one in real life does ______ regarding any element of the ME setting, then you're missing the damn point completely.) "

I've already explained how combat rolls make the combat more fluid, and Shepard less stiff.

If you want to take out combat rolls, than you also have to take out run-and-gun gameplay. Which means Resident Evil 4 and 5 gameplay. And while those games are great, not being able to move while shooting is by far the biggest criticism of those games, and the series in general.

[Killjoy Cutter]

TheIdiocyWizard wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The Spetnaz thing is part of a technique taught around the quirk / limitations of the AK-series weapons. They wouldn't do it if not for that.

Regardless, it is still done in real life.

Anyway, why are we arguing about this. It may not be "realistic", but having the capability to do it fulfils a purpose, which is to make the gameplay fun and thrilling. As long as you enjoy it then it doesn't really matter, but seeing as you don't enjoy it, then deal with it. Don't play the game if it not being realistic makes it that bad. I can tell you that it's not going to change, so sitting here and complaing about it really won't accomplish anything.

As I noted earlier, I'll have to see if it can modded out, like the exploding mooks and showers of gore in DA2.  Because as it stands, having Shep roll around like a dip**** while being shot at is a deal-breaker.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Why does it matter? Is it a competition(perhaps for the develoeprs, not the consumers) and why is GoW3 the benchmark?

[Oblivious]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

"Combat rolls" are pathetic Hollywood bullcrap.

They still make the combat better, and more fun. It increase fluidity of combat.

What's "fun" about a facepalm and eyeroll inducing element being hardcoded into the combat?  Doing goofy acrobatics in a gunfight is just a good way to get shot. 

Rolling from cover to cover is faster than standing up, walking over to the next piece of cover, and then squatting down.

Anyways, you seem to be one of those people who pointlessly criticises shooters because they are shooters. Your opinion will obviously not be dissuaded, so there's not much else to say.

No, I pointedly criticize games that include idiotic elements.

No one in real life rolls around from cover to cover -- because it does not work. 

(And if you're thinking of replying with "But no one in real life does ______ regarding any element of the ME setting, then you're missing the damn point completely.)

No, people don't roll in real life, they dive. But while I enjoyed diving in Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 (god how many years ago was that?) I admit that in terms of sheer "fun" there's nothing fun about watching Shepard dive away from a rocket only to land on his face and then stand up stiffly. At least with rolling the fluid, dynamic combat doesn't stop for a second, it's a roller coaster ride all the way through.

This is something I hated about ME2, moving from cover to cover was unnecessarily difficult since Shepard had to stand up, back away from his current cover, strafe over to the new piece of cover, and squat down again. Compare this with Fenix where you press the "A" button and he does a swift, smooth SWAT turn to the new cover.

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

To repeat myself, "(And if you're thinking of replying with "But no one in real life does ______ regarding any element of the ME setting, then you're missing the damn point completely.) "

I've already explained how combat rolls make the combat more fluid, and Shepard less stiff.

If you want to take out combat rolls, than you also have to take out run-and-gun gameplay. Which means Resident Evil 4 and 5 gameplay. And while those games are great, not being able to move while shooting is by far the biggest criticism of those games, and the series in general.

Except of course that real trained soldiers do move while firing / fire while moving in real life -- if you can't move while firing in RE4/RE5, then there's a flaw in those games. 

[AwakenxBenihime]

AlexXIV wrote...

I have been in the military for a couple of years. One thing you don't do is rolling around. You run, cover. But you are not rolling around unless you are actor in a movie. You wear all kind of equipment including a helmet, that may average at 50 to 70 lbs (30kg). Do you really think rolling around in this gear will give you any advantage? It will rather leave you hurting yourself or losing sense of orientation. I know I said GoW is more realistic than ME, but not in this regard. Most realistic would be to run in half-high position as fast as you can and keep your head down as much as possible. Crawling is also very efficient if your goal is to stay alive. More than any so-called combat rolls.

You can also jump away from a grenade, or dodge a rocket by falling to the ground. Rolling is just a simple way to do both of those things.

[Killjoy Cutter]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

KSRT8 wrote...

I like Mass Effect for an rpg, but hands down Halo is still the best shooter in my personal opinion. And besides that Gears Of War is all about the shotgun. I wonder how Mass Effect 3 will compete with Halo 4 when it finally comes out?

Unfortunately HALO, at least when I tired it on the xBox, used the gooftastic setup common to most xBox shooters, where one stick controls the direction of movement and the other controls the direction of facing, and the two are entirely unlinked.

Kind of like how the PC does?

So HALO controls the same way on the PC?  

No, on a PC your movement is controlled by WASD, and the direction you face is controlled by the mouse, two different objects. That's a PC setup there. I'll admit, though, trying to control a Warthog for the first time is like using a manual transmission for the first time.

Still the same idea -- movement and facing are unlinked, giving a sort of odd, counter-intuitive feel the the controls that never really goes away.

[AlexXIV]

Oblivious wrote...

This is something I hated about ME2, moving from cover to cover was unnecessarily difficult since Shepard had to stand up, back away from his current cover, strafe over to the new piece of cover, and squat down again. Compare this with Fenix where you press the "A" button and he does a swift, smooth SWAT turn to the new cover.

Ok I can agree that the way you move in and out of cover in ME2 was too stiff. But I protest to the notion that rolling is the only way to make combat fluid. If you dive, as you say, you don't need to stand up stiffly. What about just making him standing up quick? Actually you don't stand up, if you lie flat on the ground you ram your boots in the ground and push yourself into a run from there. Standing straight up from the ground while being under fire is surely a silly thing to do.

[111987]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

To repeat myself, "(And if you're thinking of replying with "But no one in real life does ______ regarding any element of the ME setting, then you're missing the damn point completely.) "

I've already explained how combat rolls make the combat more fluid, and Shepard less stiff.

If you want to take out combat rolls, than you also have to take out run-and-gun gameplay. Which means Resident Evil 4 and 5 gameplay. And while those games are great, not being able to move while shooting is by far the biggest criticism of those games, and the series in general.

Except of course that real trained soldiers do move while firing / fire while moving in real life -- if you can't move while firing in RE4/RE5, then there's a flaw in those games. 

Because of the kicback of a gun, you shouldn't be able to move quickly and still fire accurately.

Anyways this is a pointless argument. All the best.