680 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Watch how Shep moves from cover to cover here... no roll, low walk. 

That's how it's done.  

[Oblivious]

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?  

Every FPS after Castle Wolfenstein, no matter the console, plays like that. Welcome to FPS gaming in the 21st century, where it's possible to look up AND walk backwards at the same time:O

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

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.

And yet somehow they manage to fire usefully on the move...

[AlexXIV]

jreezy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you want GoW-like stuff, go play GoW.

Maybe you shouldn't be playing Mass Effect. The influences are already there but you seem to be oblivious to them.

To be fair this is the BSN and ME board. To come there to complain that ME is not GoW is a bit ... how do I put it. I am not at the GoW network complaining that GoW is not more like ME. Because I accept that people and tastes are different and that it is a good thing that there are different games for different people so everyone can have their fun. I mean why should I stop playing games just because a majority of people likes to play a certain style that I don't like? As long as the RPG market is big enough to make good RPGs I want Bioware to make good RPGs.

[Killjoy Cutter]

jreezy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you want GoW-like stuff, go play GoW.

Maybe you shouldn't be playing Mass Effect. The influences are already there but you seem to be oblivious to them.

Oh, of course, that's right, ever game that has the elements "third-person" and "there's cover" is really just a GoW clone, how silly of me. 

[AlexXIV]

111987 wrote...

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.

The point is not to aim accurately. The point is to keep the enemy down while you fire. As long as you fire and they keep their heads down, they won't shoot at you. I think the term is suppressive fire if I am not mistaken.

[111987]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you want GoW-like stuff, go play GoW.

Maybe you shouldn't be playing Mass Effect. The influences are already there but you seem to be oblivious to them.

Oh, of course, that's right, ever game that has the elements "third-person" and "there's cover" is really just a GoW clone, how silly of me. 

www.msxbox-world.com/news/article/15690/bioware-mass-effect-3-inspired-by-halo-gears-of-war-cod-more.html

"If you had BioWare's rich, detailed story where your choices mattered,
where they could determine the future of civilisations; if you had all
of that coupled with the heart-stopping action of games like Gears Of
War, that's what we're going for."-David Silverman

The influences are there.

[Oblivious]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Even if Shepard were to stand up incredibly fast he'd still be standing up in a stiff, vertical manner before being able to move again compared to Fenix who does the roll and immediately gets back up, never breaking pace. I know it's unrealistic, trust me. But like the reloading health bar, for sake of "fun" it helps to have it. Remember guys, the objective here is plausible fun. And from what I've seen of the Spetsnaz rolling is completely plausible

[111987]

AlexXIV wrote...


The point is not to aim accurately. The point is to keep the enemy down while you fire. As long as you fire and they keep their heads down, they won't shoot at you. I think the term is suppressive fire if I am not mistaken.

Yes, but my point was in games you CAN still fire accurately while moving quickly. In real-life, you would usually only move while firing for suppresive fire.

Modifié par 111987, 04 décembre 2011 - 07:53 .

[AlexXIV]

Oblivious wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Even if Shepard were to stand up incredibly fast he'd still be standing up in a stiff, vertical manner before being able to move again compared to Fenix who does the roll and immediately gets back up, never breaking pace. I know it's unrealistic, trust me. But like the reloading health bar, for sake of "fun" it helps to have it. Remember guys, the objective here is plausible fun. And from what I've seen of the Spetsnaz rolling is completely plausible

But wouldn't getting up in a different way be also an option to rolling? I mean standing up stiffly straight up is not the only way to get up. If you look at 100 m sprinters in the olympic games. They don't run from a straight position they start with their hands on the ground. That's what I mean. There are other options than rolling to standing straight up. If you serve in the military you learn how to get up and run from lying flat on the ground. You take your weapon in one hand (or shoulder it), push yourself up with one or two hands and your boots and immediately run in the direction you want to go. There is no standing up and tucking clothes or looking in the mirror if the make up is still good. You start running from a lying position. Or crouching, cowering, whatever.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 04 décembre 2011 - 07:57 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Oblivious wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Even if Shepard were to stand up incredibly fast he'd still be standing up in a stiff, vertical manner before being able to move again compared to Fenix who does the roll and immediately gets back up, never breaking pace. I know it's unrealistic, trust me. But like the reloading health bar, for sake of "fun" it helps to have it. Remember guys, the objective here is plausible fun. And from what I've seen of the Spetsnaz rolling is completely plausible

And down that road, we get the rogue and warrior of DA2, leaping around the fight like monkeys with swords.  Derp.

[AlexXIV]

111987 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...


The point is not to aim accurately. The point is to keep the enemy down while you fire. As long as you fire and they keep their heads down, they won't shoot at you. I think the term is suppressive fire if I am not mistaken.

Yes, but my point was in games you CAN still fire accurately while moving quickly. In real-life, you would usually only move while firing for suppresive fire.

I don't think in ME you fire very accurately while running. I for one don't really. Or maybe I just didn't notice that you can. I always stand still to kill. I fire while running though which hits opponents, but it doesn't really finish them. To finish them I have to do it from cover or at least stand still. Well unless the enemy is really close and not in cover then you don't need alot of aiming.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 04 décembre 2011 - 07:56 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

AlexXIV wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Even if Shepard were to stand up incredibly fast he'd still be standing up in a stiff, vertical manner before being able to move again compared to Fenix who does the roll and immediately gets back up, never breaking pace. I know it's unrealistic, trust me. But like the reloading health bar, for sake of "fun" it helps to have it. Remember guys, the objective here is plausible fun. And from what I've seen of the Spetsnaz rolling is completely plausible

But wouldn't getting up in a different way be also an option to rolling? I mean standing up stiffly straight up is not the only way to get up. If you look at 100 m sprinters in the olympic games. They don't run from a straight position they start with their hands on the ground. That's what I mean. There are other options than rolling to standing straight up. If you serve in the military you learn how to get up and run from lying flat on the ground. You take your weapon in one hand (or shoulder it), push yourself up with one or two ands and your boots and immediately run in the direction you want to go. There is no standing up and tucking clothes or looking in the mirror if the make up is still good. You start running from a lying position. Or crouching, cowering, whatever.

Exactly.

There are ways that real people with actual training deal with these issues in real combat, that doesn't involve doing summersaults and cartwheels while being shot at. 

But I guess those would be too hard to code, or not "cool" enough, or something.

[Killjoy Cutter]

AlexXIV wrote...

111987 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

The point is not to aim accurately. The point is to keep the enemy down while you fire. As long as you fire and they keep their heads down, they won't shoot at you. I think the term is suppressive fire if I am not mistaken.

Yes, but my point was in games you CAN still fire accurately while moving quickly. In real-life, you would usually only move while firing for suppresive fire.

I don't think in ME you fire very accurately while running. I for one don't really. Or maybe I just didn't notice that you can. I always stand still to kill. I fire while running though which hits opponents, but it doesn't really finish them. To finish them I have to do it from cover or at least stand still. Well unless the enemy is really close and not in cover then you don't need alot of aiming.

I seem to recall the "aim circle" getting larger if you were moving in ME1.

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

If you want GoW-like stuff, go play GoW.

Maybe you shouldn't be playing Mass Effect. The influences are already there but you seem to be oblivious to them.

Oh, of course, that's right, ever game that has the elements "third-person" and "there's cover" is really just a GoW clone, how silly of me. 

www.msxbox-world.com/news/article/15690/bioware-mass-effect-3-inspired-by-halo-gears-of-war-cod-more.html

"If you had BioWare's rich, detailed story where your choices mattered,
where they could determine the future of civilisations; if you had all
of that coupled with the heart-stopping action of games like Gears Of
War, that's what we're going for."-David Silverman

The influences are there.

GoW wasn't heart-stopping, it was just goofy. 

And ME1 didn't feel or play anything like GoW.

[AlexXIV]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

But I guess those would be too hard to code, or not "cool" enough, or something.

Honestly I think it is the rule of cool. I personaly cringe at stuff like that because I know it is silly. Knowledge can be a burden sometimes.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 04 décembre 2011 - 08:03 .

[Oblivious]

AlexXIV wrote...

Oblivious wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Even if Shepard were to stand up incredibly fast he'd still be standing up in a stiff, vertical manner before being able to move again compared to Fenix who does the roll and immediately gets back up, never breaking pace. I know it's unrealistic, trust me. But like the reloading health bar, for sake of "fun" it helps to have it. Remember guys, the objective here is plausible fun. And from what I've seen of the Spetsnaz rolling is completely plausible

But wouldn't getting up in a different way be also an option to rolling? I mean standing up stiffly straight up is not the only way to get up. If you look at 100 m sprinters in the olympic games. They don't run from a straight position they start with their hands on the ground. That's what I mean. There are other options than rolling to standing straight up. If you serve in the military you learn how to get up and run from lying flat on the ground. You take your weapon in one hand (or shoulder it), push yourself up with one or two hands and your boots and immediately run in the direction you want to go. There is no standing up and tucking clothes or looking in the mirror if the make up is still good. You start running from a lying position. Or crouching, cowering, whatever.

I thought about that, but that would require 2 animations. The dive animation which propels Shepard forward in the direction that you aim to dive, and then the "sprinter" animation to stand up. Problem with the sprinter thing is that you need momentum to stand back up, which means Shepard will have no choice but to probel himself even further just to get back on his/her feet. That effectively doubles the distance of your dive (which can turn from being good to being very bad very fast) and it increases the amount of time the player loses control of Shepard until the animation finishes.

The sprinter thing, while cool, would turn extremely catastrophic when you dive away from a rocket only for the animation to land you right in the center of the enemy formation. This isn't a problem in real life since real life has alot of space, but in the world of Mass Effect with its tight corridors and high concentration of enemies I'd prefer the quick, short roll.

[Oblivious]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

111987 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

The point is not to aim accurately. The point is to keep the enemy down while you fire. As long as you fire and they keep their heads down, they won't shoot at you. I think the term is suppressive fire if I am not mistaken.

Yes, but my point was in games you CAN still fire accurately while moving quickly. In real-life, you would usually only move while firing for suppresive fire.

I don't think in ME you fire very accurately while running. I for one don't really. Or maybe I just didn't notice that you can. I always stand still to kill. I fire while running though which hits opponents, but it doesn't really finish them. To finish them I have to do it from cover or at least stand still. Well unless the enemy is really close and not in cover then you don't need alot of aiming.

I seem to recall the "aim circle" getting larger if you were moving in ME1.

TBH I'd rather there be no reticule unless you were aiming similar to Uncharted or Gears of War. The only way to actually aim is to hold down the aim button. Unfortunately I know this will cripple the "shooter-challenged" fanbase who haven't developed the skills to multitask (sorta like how Killjoy or my parents have difficulty even walking in an FPS) and Bioware won't incorporate it.

[AlexXIV]

Oblivious wrote...
The sprinter thing, while cool, would turn extremely catastrophic when you dive away from a rocket only for the animation to land you right in the center of the enemy formation. This isn't a problem in real life since real life has alot of space, but in the world of Mass Effect with its tight corridors and high concentration of enemies I'd prefer the quick, short roll.

Well diving away from rockets is not really something you get trained in the military because frankly, you don't shoot rockets at people. You shoot them at tanks, buildings, etc. Of course it can always happen for some reason and in that case rolling may be efficient. But that would be rare occations. In ME of course you have super armor and shields so you may even survive a rocket to the face. And the armor suit may increase your physical attributes to a point that rolling around is less of a pain in the ass.

One reason you don't roll around much irl is simply your weapon. If you are a smart soldier you will keep dirt from it and try to not risk it being broken or lose it's aim. A malfunction weapon makes you useless. So you will, in whatever you do, try to keep the weapon out of harms way. Rolling around is always a danger to break some part of your gear that you need badly.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 04 décembre 2011 - 08:45 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Oblivious wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

111987 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

The point is not to aim accurately. The point is to keep the enemy down while you fire. As long as you fire and they keep their heads down, they won't shoot at you. I think the term is suppressive fire if I am not mistaken.

Yes, but my point was in games you CAN still fire accurately while moving quickly. In real-life, you would usually only move while firing for suppresive fire.

I don't think in ME you fire very accurately while running. I for one don't really. Or maybe I just didn't notice that you can. I always stand still to kill. I fire while running though which hits opponents, but it doesn't really finish them. To finish them I have to do it from cover or at least stand still. Well unless the enemy is really close and not in cover then you don't need alot of aiming.

I seem to recall the "aim circle" getting larger if you were moving in ME1.

TBH I'd rather there be no reticule unless you were aiming similar to Uncharted or Gears of War. The only way to actually aim is to hold down the aim button. Unfortunately I know this will cripple the "shooter-challenged" fanbase who haven't developed the skills to multitask (sorta like how Killjoy or my parents have difficulty even walking in an FPS) and Bioware won't incorporate it.

It's not a matter of multi-tasking, it's a matter of it being utterly counter-intuitive. 

Take the PC setup on, say, Mechwarrior 4 -- there's a far more natural interconnection between your direction of travel and your direction of facing.  If you're facing 45 degrees to the right a target, and turn your mech 45 degrees to the left, your facing will also change 45 degrees to the left, and line up in the direction of that target.  If you then rotate the torso of the mech 45 degrees to the left, to line up with your feet, you'll be facing 45 degrees to the left of that target. 

Now take the xBox "mechwarrior" games, where you get the bizzaro setup where no matter what you do with your mech's feet, no matter which direction you run, your torso stays pointed at the same compass heading until you seperately rotate it -- completely disconnected from real movement. 

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Seboist wrote...

Seeing as how ME is only now adding features that were already standard in Gears 1 like rolling and going from cover to cover, Bioware hasn't a chance in hell of surpassing the third one.

Rolling around like an idiot is exactly why ME should not try to be a goofball lolzy shooter like GoW.

Wow. There's no reason Mass Effect shouldn't try to emulate the combat portions of GoW gameplay. Combat rolls make player movement more fluid, as does moving from cover to cover.

If Mass Effect 3 had the same combat gameplay as Gears 3, plus the great story, expansive dialogue, powers, etc...that Mass Effect is known for, ME3 would probably be one the greatest games of all time.

Exactly, I've never understood WHY people think being like the Gears of War series (IN COMBAT) is a bad thing! ... IMO it's one of the most fluid games when it comes to the gameplay. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

The original question was about "surpassing" GoW, which is pretty meaningless.