680 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

alex90c wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Really?  Because I consider GoW and HALO utterly unplayable.

Maybe if you'd suck less you'd realize that Gears of War's gameplay is smoother and over-all better than Mass Effect's gameplay, .

A) Still find GoW unplayable.
Did I kick your favorite game or something?

A) Then that problem lies with you, not with the game.

It's definately the game.  There's nothing to it, bog standard brainless console shooter.  It's designed for and has vanilla mass accesability as a bear-and-chips game.  It's just a bunch of steroid freaks in Hollywood combat getups running around blasting things.    Dudebro.  Implied grotch-grab. 

Gears 3 isn't brainless at all. 

All you have to do is look at the Seriously 3.0 achievement to see that the game is *chuckle* geared more towards hardcore players since the requirements to get it are absolutely insane. Then if you go further than that and actually to the gameplay itself,  the singleplayer is pretty damn hard (if they took out the DBNO system players would have to reload a gazillion times like in the previous Gears games because they're tough) and the multiplayer, seriously that is murderously unforgiving. I've been playing shooters for the past eight years and I only have a 0.8 K/D ratio.

And if you would get off your high horse, you'd realise that there are actually fun characters an interesting story, and an interesting (though apocalyptic, and I'd never want to live on Sera) setting. Sure, you kill a load of stuff, it's a shooter for crying out loud, but there's quite a bit more to it than that. And to be honest, I'd take a bunch of massive herculean blokes going around murdering stuff decked out in heavy armour rather than Mass Effect 2's catsuits (yep, that's another thing, the Gears series doesn't sexualise, hell I don't think I saw any ****** whatsoever in all three games).

tl;dr, the truth is the game isn't to your taste, not that the game itself sucks (if it did why does it have a 91/100 & 91.89% score on its Wikipedia page?)

Because it gives most of the people voting for it what they're after.  Which doesn't say anything about the game other than only and exactly that.  Just as a game being difficult doesn't make it anything other than difficult. 

The catsuits and gratuitous sexualization are issues with ME2, where it came up short of ME1, and you'll never see me argue otherwise. 

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
ME is a TPS with RPG elements, whereas GoW is a TPS with actual choice/consequence.

Then could you define what a TPS is? Because I'm wondering what would make ME corresponding to the "S" part as it is mostly optional.

[Il Divo]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...


Then how can you play this series from ME2  ME1 onward?

Well, I fixed the question, since Mass Effect 1 was already Gears in many ways, simply with worse gameplay.

And to answer, because I don't like the characters, the setting, the dialogue, the lack of choices, the lack of powers, the guns, the camera angle when Marcus Fenix sprints, the reload mechanics, the multiplayer, the chainsaw guns, or pretty much anything about it.

I can't say the same for Mass Effect. I have no ill will for anyone who enjoys Gears, thinks the gameplay is better, or even prefers it to Mass Effect. However, up until this point, Mass Effect has held my attention all the way through. Gears of War has not. I've played through Gears 1 and 2, I don't find this likely to change with 3.

Modifié par Il Divo, 06 décembre 2011 - 06:40 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Cthulhu42 wrote...
Third-Person-Shooter. And as you shoot plenty of things in ME, the "S" certainly applies.

That's the problem actually. In a TPS you "have to" shoot plenty of things, in ME you only "can" shoot plenty of things.
Personally minus boss/vehicles battles I did not have to shoot things in  ME.

Modifié par Kakita Tatsumaru, 06 décembre 2011 - 06:48 .

[alex90c]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Really?  Because I consider GoW and HALO utterly unplayable.

Maybe if you'd suck less you'd realize that Gears of War's gameplay is smoother and over-all better than Mass Effect's gameplay, .

A) Still find GoW unplayable.
Did I kick your favorite game or something?

A) Then that problem lies with you, not with the game.

It's definately the game.  There's nothing to it, bog standard brainless console shooter.  It's designed for and has vanilla mass accesability as a bear-and-chips game.  It's just a bunch of steroid freaks in Hollywood combat getups running around blasting things.    Dudebro.  Implied grotch-grab. 

Gears 3 isn't brainless at all. 

All you have to do is look at the Seriously 3.0 achievement to see that the game is *chuckle* geared more towards hardcore players since the requirements to get it are absolutely insane. Then if you go further than that and actually to the gameplay itself,  the singleplayer is pretty damn hard (if they took out the DBNO system players would have to reload a gazillion times like in the previous Gears games because they're tough) and the multiplayer, seriously that is murderously unforgiving. I've been playing shooters for the past eight years and I only have a 0.8 K/D ratio.

And if you would get off your high horse, you'd realise that there are actually fun characters an interesting story, and an interesting (though apocalyptic, and I'd never want to live on Sera) setting. Sure, you kill a load of stuff, it's a shooter for crying out loud, but there's quite a bit more to it than that. And to be honest, I'd take a bunch of massive herculean blokes going around murdering stuff decked out in heavy armour rather than Mass Effect 2's catsuits (yep, that's another thing, the Gears series doesn't sexualise, hell I don't think I saw any ****** whatsoever in all three games).

tl;dr, the truth is the game isn't to your taste, not that the game itself sucks (if it did why does it have a 91/100 & 91.89% score on its Wikipedia page?)

Because it gives most of the people voting for it what they're after.  Which doesn't say anything about the game other than only and exactly that.  Just as a game being difficult doesn't make it anything other than difficult. 

The catsuits and gratuitous sexualization are issues with ME2, where it came up short of ME1, and you'll never see me argue otherwise. 

So basically it's not to your taste and you basically came up with that bullsh*t before like about it being brainless in an attempt to justify your position. All you had to say was "it's not to my taste", not try to insult the game and its players by calling it brainless and "vanille mass accessibility" when if I gave anyone in my family a controller and said "play this game" they'd get absolutely demolished fifty times over even on casual probably.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Didn't know GoW had a build in time-stopping target-selecting HUD so you don't have to interact with enemies in real time.

[Killjoy Cutter]

alex90c wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Really?  Because I consider GoW and HALO utterly unplayable.

Maybe if you'd suck less you'd realize that Gears of War's gameplay is smoother and over-all better than Mass Effect's gameplay, .

A) Still find GoW unplayable.
Did I kick your favorite game or something?

A) Then that problem lies with you, not with the game.

It's definately the game.  There's nothing to it, bog standard brainless console shooter.  It's designed for and has vanilla mass accesability as a bear-and-chips game.  It's just a bunch of steroid freaks in Hollywood combat getups running around blasting things.    Dudebro.  Implied grotch-grab. 

Gears 3 isn't brainless at all. 

All you have to do is look at the Seriously 3.0 achievement to see that the game is *chuckle* geared more towards hardcore players since the requirements to get it are absolutely insane. Then if you go further than that and actually to the gameplay itself,  the singleplayer is pretty damn hard (if they took out the DBNO system players would have to reload a gazillion times like in the previous Gears games because they're tough) and the multiplayer, seriously that is murderously unforgiving. I've been playing shooters for the past eight years and I only have a 0.8 K/D ratio.

And if you would get off your high horse, you'd realise that there are actually fun characters an interesting story, and an interesting (though apocalyptic, and I'd never want to live on Sera) setting. Sure, you kill a load of stuff, it's a shooter for crying out loud, but there's quite a bit more to it than that. And to be honest, I'd take a bunch of massive herculean blokes going around murdering stuff decked out in heavy armour rather than Mass Effect 2's catsuits (yep, that's another thing, the Gears series doesn't sexualise, hell I don't think I saw any ****** whatsoever in all three games).

tl;dr, the truth is the game isn't to your taste, not that the game itself sucks (if it did why does it have a 91/100 & 91.89% score on its Wikipedia page?)

Because it gives most of the people voting for it what they're after.  Which doesn't say anything about the game other than only and exactly that.  Just as a game being difficult doesn't make it anything other than difficult. 

The catsuits and gratuitous sexualization are issues with ME2, where it came up short of ME1, and you'll never see me argue otherwise. 

So basically it's not to your taste and you basically came up with that bullsh*t before like about it being brainless in an attempt to justify your position. All you had to say was "it's not to my taste", not try to insult the game and its players by calling it brainless and "vanille mass accessibility" when if I gave anyone in my family a controller and said "play this game" they'd get absolutely demolished fifty times over even on casual probably.

See stuff, shoot stuff, no real decision-making.  It requires learning a set of fast-twitch eye-cerebellum-hand-controller responses, or as gamers say, "skills", and results depend on the same.  classic video game, classic sort of difficulty.   Proven formula, mass popularity, vanilla. 

I find it unplayable because it's just another twitchy shooter staring meatheads in a long line of twitching shooters staring meatheads. 

Don't expect me to be more diplomatic about it, given the assinine assertion from two people now that there's something "wrong" with me for not liking GoW.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

It will NEVER surpass Gears of War 3. Mass Effect's combat is a shameless rip-off, and not even the best attempt.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

As a HUGE Gears of War fan I can't imagine trying to choose between the two of them. It would be like trying to choose between gaming and music. They both have their own qualities. GoW & ME ftw!

[alex90c]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

See stuff, shoot stuff, no real decision-making.  It requires learning a set of fast-twitch eye-cerebellum-hand-controller responses, or as gamers say, "skills", and results depend on the same.  classic video game, classic sort of difficulty.   Proven formula, mass popularity, vanilla. 

I find it unplayable because it's just another twitchy shooter staring meatheads in a long line of twitching shooters staring meatheads. 

Don't expect me to be more diplomatic about it, given the assinine assertion from two people now that there's something "wrong" with me for not liking GoW.

Just how in Mass Effect you "see stuff, shoot stuff"? Yes, Gears of War has very basic decision-making (do I take the right path or the left path?) but it's still decision-making, and unlike Bioware games actually has an immediate effect. In Gears 1 there is a moment I think near the Lethia Imulsion Facility where you can split up, and depending on which path you take, you will either end up fighting two boomers in a crowded spot on the same level as them, or you can go upstairs and your two other squaddies will have to face them from the front while you get the easier task of shooting them from an elevation and behind them. Basic? Definitely. But unlike Bioware games, in this example you make a decision, you follow through with it and it has consequences. In this example, taking one path gives you an easier fight whereas the other (at least in my experience) just resulted in me getting gibbed about ten times (still got through it though).

The Gears games, just like practically any other game in existence (if you want to be decent at it anyway) rely on muscle memory. I gave DOA4 a go recently, and I was horrific at it because you have to pull off combos, and I have absolutely zero muscle memory for it so I was just stumbling all over the buttons. Now rather than seeing it as "man this game sucks", I realised it was actually that I sucked at it. It's probably a great game, I was just awful since I never play beat-em ups. Yeah, Gears is a shooter so when it comes to that it's hardly original, but I wouldn't say the execution was vanilla. Call of Duty? Few shots, and blam dead. Gears? Well you've got to pump a lot of lead in to someone unless you're at point blank with shotguns so it ends up in making it so the better player ends up winning, rather than just the flukefest that COD can end up as (I have memories of playing COD2 online and everyone would lob their grenades in the air at the start of a round and there would always be kills as they landed all over people which was even worse on Search & Destroy when you had one life). Making a reloading minigame? I can't think of any game that's done that. Fighting huge monsters? Sure, I see it a lot in a fantasy setting, especially fantasy RPGs but not in a TPS (Reapers don't count because we don't fight those directly, apart from the human reaper).

To be frank, your posts just seethe with elitism as if your tastes are somehow superior to those who enjoy shooters, bu they're not at all. They're just as relevant as everyone elses tastes, and if the mainstream nowadays like actiony shooters like COD, then well you can try and be hipster all you want but it just makes you look a bit stupid when you're bashing a game for the most pathetic reasons going. Besides, if playing with some huge blokes really bothers you, there are even F!Gears available (a third one coming out with the RAAM's Shadow DLC), but that's such an inane complaint I don't even know why I'm wasting my time responding to it.

[Killjoy Cutter]

It's not elitism, it's a reaction against the assinine core notion of the thread, that the ME franchise should try to be "more GoW than GoW", against the notion that every game has to be like the most widely popular games, against the idea of "Oh hey let's make ME a cross between GoW, HALO, and CoD!"

People who like those sorts of games have a myriad to choose from. The world doesn't need YAGOW. Let ME be ME for people who like ME.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Didn't know GoW had a build in time-stopping target-selecting HUD so you don't have to interact with enemies in real time.

Now you're just grasping at straws.

And with ME you don't not interact with enemies in real time either; there's just a clumsy pause menu of sorts in place because the devs didn't let you assign every power to a button (on consoles). Although they could've also kept it around for people like you, who need a few seconds every now and then to get their bearings and catch their breath during one of confusing and disorientating firefights.

What's next, denying the obvious shooter elements in modern Fallouts because you don't have to attack outside of VATS?

[111987]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's not elitism, it's a reaction against the assinine core notion of the thread, that the ME franchise should try to be "more GoW than GoW", against the notion that every game has to be like the most widely popular games, against the idea of "Oh hey let's make ME a cross between GoW, HALO, and CoD!"

People who like those sorts of games have a myriad to choose from. The world doesn't need YAGOW. Let ME be ME for people who like ME.

There's a reason the widely popular games are popular; because in almost all cases, they are very good games. Taking cues from other series to improve the franchise, while still keeping what makes the series is great, can't be anything but good.

You may disagree, but in this you are by far in the minority. Most people would rather see improvements and changes than not. And FYI, the vast majority of people appreciated the improved combat in ME3 (based off all the people who played the demos, and video game critics).

[Kaiser Shepard]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's not elitism, it's a reaction against the assinine core notion of the thread, that the ME franchise should try to be "more GoW than GoW", against the notion that every game has to be like the most widely popular games, against the idea of "Oh hey let's make ME a cross between GoW, HALO, and CoD!"

People who like those sorts of games have a myriad to choose from. The world doesn't need YAGOW. Let ME be ME for people who like ME.

Here's some news for ya: the series already is like Gears.

Think about that for a minute.

[alex90c]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's not elitism, it's a reaction against the assinine core notion of the thread, that the ME franchise should try to be "more GoW than GoW", against the notion that every game has to be like the most widely popular games, against the idea of "Oh hey let's make ME a cross between GoW, HALO, and CoD!"

People who like those sorts of games have a myriad to choose from. The world doesn't need YAGOW. Let ME be ME for people who like ME.

People aren't saying ME should be like GoW. They're saying the gameplay, which is influenced heavily by GoW should replicate GoW's gameplay more than it already does. This means including slipping from cover to cover, rolling (honestly, going from GoW to ME, the lack of rolling SUCKS), a half-decent, reactive AI (rather than the nonexistent ME2 one), larger maps to give more room to manoeuvre, and more organic maps. Sure, Gears had plenty of moments where there were things in the map that were purposely designed for cover, but it was hell of a lot more believable than ME1/2's going in to an open space with a load of random boxes business.

Story? Stick to the Bioware way. Characters? Stick to the Bioware way. We're not saying the whole of ME should be like GoW, we're just referring to the combat.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's not elitism, it's a reaction against the assinine core notion of the thread, that the ME franchise should try to be "more GoW than GoW", against the notion that every game has to be like the most widely popular games, against the idea of "Oh hey let's make ME a cross between GoW, HALO, and CoD!"

People who like those sorts of games have a myriad to choose from. The world doesn't need YAGOW. Let ME be ME for people who like ME.

Here's some news for ya: the series already is like Gears.

Think about that for a minute.

We've already been over all the ways in which the ME series is not GoWy.

[Killjoy Cutter]

alex90c wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It's not elitism, it's a reaction against the assinine core notion of the thread, that the ME franchise should try to be "more GoW than GoW", against the notion that every game has to be like the most widely popular games, against the idea of "Oh hey let's make ME a cross between GoW, HALO, and CoD!"

People who like those sorts of games have a myriad to choose from. The world doesn't need YAGOW. Let ME be ME for people who like ME.

People aren't saying ME should be like GoW. They're saying the gameplay, which is influenced heavily by GoW should replicate GoW's gameplay more than it already does. This means including slipping from cover to cover, rolling (honestly, going from GoW to ME, the lack of rolling SUCKS), a half-decent, reactive AI (rather than the nonexistent ME2 one), larger maps to give more room to manoeuvre, and more organic maps. Sure, Gears had plenty of moments where there were things in the map that were purposely designed for cover, but it was hell of a lot more believable than ME1/2's going in to an open space with a load of random boxes business.

Story? Stick to the Bioware way. Characters? Stick to the Bioware way. We're not saying the whole of ME should be like GoW, we're just referring to the combat.

Whatever else, could we please not have ME turn into a roll-fest?  Or is it already too late with ME3? 

Combat rolling is one of those rediculous video-gamey immersion-breaking things -- reminds me of the scenes in Galaxy Quest with Allen's character rolling around in the dirt and losing his pistol like an idiot.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Didn't know GoW had a build in time-stopping target-selecting HUD so you don't have to interact with enemies in real time.

Now you're just grasping at straws.

And with ME you don't not interact with enemies in real time either; there's just a clumsy pause menu of sorts in place because the devs didn't let you assign every power to a button (on consoles). Although they could've also kept it around for people like you, who need a few seconds every now and then to get their bearings and catch their breath during one of confusing and disorientating firefights.

What's next, denying the obvious shooter elements in modern Fallouts because you don't have to attack outside of VATS?

Yep, Shooting in Fallout 3 is sooo imprtant that you can finish the game without it.
But I'll stop here before you call Dragon Age and A-RPG just because you forgot using the tactical pause.