680 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

jreezy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

There's a difference between a game with things that aren't real but part and parcel of the fictional setting, and a game with things that are actively anti-realistic.  Gunflight gymnastics are anti-realistic. 

Ah. Now I see your concern. The only thing I can say is at least you don't have to use the dive roll if you so choose.

Others have stated that the roll is automatic when moving between different areas of cover.

[naledgeborn]

Killjoy, you're a stubborn fool. You ever heard of the "rush and roll". It looks somewhat like the diveroll you just spent a page blasting. Thing is, in Basic Military Training I had to do the rush and roll while holding an eight pound M-16. How's that for realism?

[MassStorm]

jreezy wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

I honestly speaking fail to take GoW3 seriously.....just seeing the characters it seems like a teenager game to me....

As if Mass Effect 2's characters don't give off that impression.

I agree on this point in fact i pretty much despise the majority of the stereotypized characters we have on ME2 and was so happy when i have heard pretty much none of them will be in the permanent squad of ME3.  

ME1 charcters >> ME2 charcters

Having said that i pretty much agree that ME needs more fluidity in the combat session however not at the expense of RPG elements which have been already reduced to the bone. ME3 should remain an Action-RPG and not becoming an TPS altogether.

[Shepard the Leper]

Luc0s wrote...

It makes perfect sense.

In Gears of War, the enemy A.I. is pretty advanced. They suppress you, flank you and bombard you with heavy weapons. In this game, high mobility is essential. Without it, you would get blown up dozens of times. The dive-roll is essential in Gears of War to escape from sticky situations.

Uh, why? What you're saying here is that when you're in trouble the only way out is by diving or rolling - that doesn't make sense and it frankly is a stupid system. Technically there isn't any difference between standing up and moving to another possition and standing up and rolling / diving into / towards a new position.

I haven't played GoW3 (I'm a pc gamer) so I can't say much about GoW3's system, but to me it sounds like you can dive / roll to avoid damage which is ridiculous (if true) and only adds a dumb-looking animation to the game without any significant purpose (except cheating).

The only reason why run-and-gun is rewarding in Mass Effect 2, is because the A.I. in that game sucks. The A.I. isn't really treatening at all, so either staying in cover at the same place or run-and-gunning, both works. But this wouldn't be the case if the A.I. was better (like in Gears of War).

AI always sucks, just like GoW's AI there are always easy ways to fool the AI or exploit their weaknesses.

In my opinion, the combat in Mass Effect 2 was mediocre, because of all this. Shepard walked pretty slow and you didn't have any options to jump away from (flashbang) grenades or rockets. The combat was a vast improvement over ME1's combat, but it still felt stiff and linear. The enemies where dumb because of crappy A.I. The enemies didn't flank. Camping in ME2 worked perfectly fine, but agressive play (Vanguard Charge-a-lot) worked fine too. All by all, the enemies didn't feel really treatening and the combat got repetitive sooner than GoW's combat.

You are confusing a shoot-only system with a shoot-and-use-Shepard's(-and squadmate)- powers on the fly system. The latter is almost twice as demanding which consequently results in slower paced combat to allow us to use all available abilities instead of pew-pew only. There isn't much Bioware can do about the pace without making it impossible to use abilities effectively (without having to pause the game constantly).

A smarter A.I. with enemies that flank you, heavy surpressive fire, grenades, rockets and nukes, would be a vast improvement for Mass Effect. But THEN you DO NEED more mobility and dive-rolling and cover-diving is the answer. 

AI isn't going to be better in ME3. Smarter level design is a far better (and easier) way to allow more flanking and a more deadly AI. Go play the LotSB "Hatch" fight and try camping - it won't work because you'll get flanked by the AI. This is the same AI used in the rest of the game, it's the level design that adds to the challenge (not the AI). Epic has a lot more experience with shooter-leveldesign which is the reason why their AI system might feel superior. The only way to compare both systems is to use Epic's AI in ME2 to find out how well (or badly) they handle things. My guess is that it won't make much of a difference (if any at all).

[Guanxi]

 $50 million dollar advertizing budget.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

You actually explain, inadvertantly, exactly what's wrong with the "dive roll".  In the game, it enhances mobility.  In reality, it leads to getting shot as you flail around on the ground, breaking your gear, losing things, and generally looking like a damn fool.  It does exactly the opposite of what it actually would -- it's anti-real.

Yes, and FTL is also anti-real, but nobody complains about that.

Dive-rolling adds gameplay and it looks believable. So what's the problem? As long as something LOOKS real, it's acceptable. After all, it's a VIDEO-GAME we're talking about here. If you prefer real combat, join the US Army (or the army of whatever country you live in), but stop complaning about VIDEO-GAMES not being real because it's totally pointless and ridiculous.

It does not look believable, that's the problem. 

This seems to become a problem with discussing any science-fiction or fantasy game or setting -- as soon as you add something speculative or fantastic, but necessary to the setting and story, such as FTL, some people believe that any reference to reality is automatically void, and that all fantastic and speculative elements are valid, and that anything goes, including unrelated random crap like people doing backflips and cartwheels in a firefight.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AI isn't going to be better in ME3. Smarter level design is a far better (and easier) way to allow more flanking and a more deadly AI. Go play the LotSB "Hatch" fight and try camping - it won't work because you'll get flanked by the AI. This is the same AI used in the rest of the game, it's the level design that adds to the challenge (not the AI). Epic has a lot more experience with shooter-leveldesign which is the reason why their AI system might feel superior. The only way to compare both systems is to use Epic's AI in ME2 to find out how well (or badly) they handle things. My guess is that it won't make much of a difference (if any at all).

At least in ME2, larger areas with multiple avenues of movement for the enemies to approach Shep will often see attempts by the AI to flank Shep. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

naledgeborn wrote...

Killjoy, you're a stubborn fool. You ever heard of the "rush and roll". It looks somewhat like the diveroll you just spent a page blasting. Thing is, in Basic Military Training I had to do the rush and roll while holding an eight pound M-16. How's that for realism?

Were you taught to constantly roll from cover to cover, and that the roll was the best way to avoid enemy fire?

[111987]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

naledgeborn wrote...

Killjoy, you're a stubborn fool. You ever heard of the "rush and roll". It looks somewhat like the diveroll you just spent a page blasting. Thing is, in Basic Military Training I had to do the rush and roll while holding an eight pound M-16. How's that for realism?

Were you taught to constantly roll from cover to cover, and that the roll was the best way to avoid enemy fire?

Rolling isn't the best way to avoid enemy fire in the game either. If someone throws a grenade at you though, it's useful to escape with it. If you quickly need to dive inside of a room to avoid enemy fire, a roll will get you in faster and safer.

Rolling into a group of enemies would be pretty stupid, but that's not how you're supposed to use the roll.

[naledgeborn]

111987 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Were you taught to constantly roll from cover to cover, and that the roll was the best way to avoid enemy fire?

Rolling isn't the best way to avoid enemy fire in the game either. If someone throws a grenade at you though, it's useful to escape with it. If you quickly need to dive inside of a room to avoid enemy fire, a roll will get you in faster and safer.

Rolling into a group of enemies would be pretty stupid, but that's not how you're supposed to use the roll.

Pretty much this...

@ Killjoy

I know that sprinting from cover to cover is the fastest way to get dead. Though in Mass Effect kinetic barriers are standard issue (DOD needs to make that happen within the next 50 years) so it gives sprinitng some leeway. But in that situation you're best bet is a low crawl/rush and roll.

And if you're "dive-rolling" into enemy fire like an idiot you don't know how to play and deserve to see a Critical Mission Failure screen.

Modifié par naledgeborn, 08 décembre 2011 - 03:55 .

[Someone With Mass]

jreezy wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It adds cliched, pathetic Hollywood stupidity.

Even with the enemies too? That thing in the GIF above didn't look human so why should the same restrictions of mobility apply to it?

Who, the Phantom? Oh no, she's a human.

Though, you should take in mind that the human soldiers of that era are often implanted with cybernetic enhancements to improve strength, sight and speed.

[Someone With Mass]

Luc0s wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AI isn't going to be better in ME3.

Mr. Hudson and other ME3 devs said otherwise.

As someone who's played the demo, I say otherwise too.

It's a huge improvement over ME2's AI.

[alex90c]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

naledgeborn wrote...

Killjoy, you're a stubborn fool. You ever heard of the "rush and roll". It looks somewhat like the diveroll you just spent a page blasting. Thing is, in Basic Military Training I had to do the rush and roll while holding an eight pound M-16. How's that for realism?

Were you taught to constantly roll from cover to cover, and that the roll was the best way to avoid enemy fire?

In GoW you don't roll from cover to cover at all, you simply run quickly to the other part you want to hide behind if it's close enough.

I really doubt you've played GoW at all.

[Killjoy Cutter]

I played the demo.

[alex90c]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

I played the demo.

Then you should know in GoW that you don't roll from cover to cover, you slide between them.

[Shepard the Leper]

Luc0s wrote...

You're wrong. Dive-rolling does make complete sense and it's not a stupid system. Dive-rolling adds a lot to the gameplay. It allows you a quick escape from certain death when a grenade is hurled your way. The dive-roll won't help you to avoid regular gunfire, but it certainly helps you escaping those grenades, because a quick dive is faster than simply walking. Of course, spamming the dive-roll won't make you faster in the long run, but a well-timed dive-roll does make you faster for a very brief moment.

A good example of how dive-rolling adds to the gameplay, can be seen here: http://www.youtube.c...tKG5_58#t=1m25s

See how he evades that grenade with a nice dive-roll at 1:25 in the video? That's what I'm talking about.

This is exactly why rolling is ridiculous. In that video that dude wasn't harmed by the explosion at all which, I assume, it's because of his gymnastic abilities or something. Rolling, diving or a flikflak is not going to stop grenade fragments (or bullets) from hitting you. The only thing you can do is throw the grenade back before it blows or quickly hide behind a solid object to shield you from the blast.

The (continues) rolling in that video only looks ridiculous and something like that would completely break the immersion for me - it's horrible.

Nope. GoW3's AI definetily does NOT suck. Try GoW3 and you'll see. The AI in that game is not easily fooled.

AI always sucks and it will be for a very long time. In case you didn't know, the AI reacts to what's happening and it always reacts in the exact same way which makes all AI systems extremely vulnerable to abuse. The "good" AI systems don't have good AI, they only have found (clever) ways to disguse the (most) obvious flaws.

This is nonsense. Gears of War's pace is a lot higher than Mass Effect's pace, yet it's still possible to use all the "abilities" that Gears of War offers you, such as active-reloading, charging and using your chainsaw-bayonet.

Using Shepard's abilities in Mass Effect doesn't take any more time or effort than using your abilities in Gears of War. So I see no reason why Mass Effect's combat can't be faster and more hectic, like Gears of War. Turning up the combat pace would greatly add to the intensity of the game, which would make Mass Effect only better.

In ME2 you have to reload "actively", you have to charge enemy positions, and handle your melee abilities (just like in GoW), PLUS you have to manage a dozen special abilities which are non-existent in GoW. That makes a huge difference (about three times more difficult). I suggest to have a look at the coolest ME2 Engineer and Adept videos I know about. Tell me, what is wrong with the pacing and if you think it's too slow, by what percentage could it be increased without making it impossible to play like this guy does? Oh, and when would rolling around be of any help in those videos?

Mr. Hudson and other ME3 devs said otherwise.

What else did you expected from Casey Hudson? That he would pronounce that ME3's AI sucks? Of course he's saying things will be better and there is no need to change much about ME2's AI system anyway. It's far easier and more effective to use different means (more and diverse enemies which require different tactics to take down, better level design to allow effective flanking etc etc) to increase the challenge (and some might say the AI). AFAIK Bioware is doing things like this to improve the system.

The best fights in ME2 have little to do with the AI, but have everything to do with the level design. The final fight on Horizon, the Collectorship Ambush and LotSB's Hatch are among the contenders in that regard. In those places there is room for the AI to maneuver (and they do flank you). Without good level design it doesn't matter which AI you're using, when there is no space to flank the player, there won't be any flanking, ever.

Modifié par Shepard the Leper, 08 décembre 2011 - 06:36 .

[Aumata]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Alicia Keys wrote...

Mass Effect series is so much better than the Gears of War series because it has story and character to it and it's epic.

At first my the topic I thought you were talking about God of War 3...

Gears of War 3
Story? Check
Characters? Check
Epicness? Check

Not seeing the "better" part here.

It has better characters and is more epic.

ME that is.

I can see ME1, but not Mass Effect 2 beating Gears Of War 2 or 3.  I have no idea what to expect from Mass Effect 3 though.