680 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Luc0s wrote...

In Mass Effect you DON'T reload actively. You just press 1 button and it's done. In Gears of War, you actually have to do a little mini-game to reload your gun. You press the reload button once, a small cursor in a bar appears, starting to move to the right. Then you have to press the reload button again when the cursor hits the "sweet spot" of the little bar.
THAT'S active-reloading and it's a lot harder to master than using your abilities in Mass Effect 2, which are all but 1 simple button-press away.

Click here for a video demonstration of active reloading in Gears of War.

It's also exactly what games don't need -- silly mini-games in the middle of combat.

[alex90c]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

In Mass Effect you DON'T reload actively. You just press 1 button and it's done. In Gears of War, you actually have to do a little mini-game to reload your gun. You press the reload button once, a small cursor in a bar appears, starting to move to the right. Then you have to press the reload button again when the cursor hits the "sweet spot" of the little bar.
THAT'S active-reloading and it's a lot harder to master than using your abilities in Mass Effect 2, which are all but 1 simple button-press away.

Click here for a video demonstration of active reloading in Gears of War.

It's also exactly what games don't need -- silly mini-games in the middle of combat.

I'd take a reloading minigame which never gets old (and failing just encourages you to succeed the next time rather than just get frustrated) over the ME2 bypass/hacking system which was torture on later playthroughs.

[alex90c]

EternalAmbiguity wrote...

jreezy wrote...

I don't think anyone with preconceived notions of negativity or even rightful dislike towards Gears of War would be able to best answer the question so why even comment?

Same reason that people biased TOWARDS Gears are answering.

Both sides have bias towards or against Gears so I'd say raising that as a point is entirely redundant. You might as well say only people who have never heard of the series and don't have an opinion on it are the only ones entitled to post since they're not biased.

[Killjoy Cutter]

alex90c wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

In Mass Effect you DON'T reload actively. You just press 1 button and it's done. In Gears of War, you actually have to do a little mini-game to reload your gun. You press the reload button once, a small cursor in a bar appears, starting to move to the right. Then you have to press the reload button again when the cursor hits the "sweet spot" of the little bar.
THAT'S active-reloading and it's a lot harder to master than using your abilities in Mass Effect 2, which are all but 1 simple button-press away.

Click here for a video demonstration of active reloading in Gears of War.

It's also exactly what games don't need -- silly mini-games in the middle of combat.

I'd take a reloading minigame which never gets old (and failing just encourages you to succeed the next time rather than just get frustrated) over the ME2 bypass/hacking system which was torture on later playthroughs.

Maybe you find it encouraging...

[Someone With Mass]

alex90c wrote...

I'd take a reloading minigame which never gets old (and failing just encourages you to succeed the next time rather than just get frustrated) over the ME2 bypass/hacking system which was torture on later playthroughs.

This.

It might be a silly mini-game, but it's a funny silly mini-game.

It's especially satisfying when you've active-reloaded a Longshot and takes someone's head off with it.

[Kaiser Shepard]

To come back on the rolling "issue", it would have been awesome if they gave Shepard those boot boosters the Cerbies have as well. Instead of rolling, that is. Or both, I would be fine with that as well.

[alex90c]

Someone With Mass wrote...

alex90c wrote...

I'd take a reloading minigame which never gets old (and failing just encourages you to succeed the next time rather than just get frustrated) over the ME2 bypass/hacking system which was torture on later playthroughs.

This.

It might be a silly mini-game, but it's a funny silly mini-game.

It's especially satisfying when you've active-reloaded a Longshot and takes someone's head off with it.

Exactly. Whereas in ME2, I absolutely refuse to bypass anything (besides the tech upgrades) on Garrus' LM because they just give such meagre rewards that it's a waste of time, whereas in GoW, to active reload gives you a damage bonus, plus as said before, it isn't frustrating since it's so simple to do, you just need to get the timing right.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Click here for a video demonstration of active reloading in Gears of War.

It's also exactly what games don't need -- silly mini-games in the middle of combat.

It's exactly what games DO need! Active reloading is the most awesome thing in Gears Of War. It feels epic. EVERYONE who played Gears of War agrees that active reloading really adds to the gameplay and experience.

But you wouldn't know. You never played GOW, you're just spewing your ignorant biased nonsense. Bah, you're a waste of time.

Yeap, I must be a waste of time who is biased and never played GoW because I don't like the game and some of its supposedly-popular features.  That must be it.  [/sarcasm]

Played the GoW demo.  Looked at 2 and 3.  I've said that all along.  I don't see any need to buy, install, and play through an entire game when I know from the demo and the gameplay videos on Youtube that it's not the sort of game I want. 

Words like "awesome" and "epic" and "gameplay experience" are red flags that a game is targeted at the console-action-twitch-combomastery crowd, and won't deliver what I want.

[Phaelducan]

Stupid bias imho. Both are good games. Biggest problem with game-forums is that it breeds myopia. For that matter, Deus Ex and Uncharted Series also have solid cover mechanics. Sam Fisher gets a nod as well.

I think in this day and age, with consoles being accessible and great games being available on all of them, it's nothing less than a shame to limit oneself in this fashion.

With that said, I always wanted to know wtf was going on in Gears of War. You get so little background to the game (at least in GoW1/2), it's harder to be engaged than say, in Mass Effect where you are constantly bombarded with codex entries and story information. Like, the Locust are cool and all, but really no different than Darkspawn/Orcs/Demons/insert generic subterranean villains.

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Click here for a video demonstration of active reloading in Gears of War.

It's also exactly what games don't need -- silly mini-games in the middle of combat.

It's exactly what games DO need! Active reloading is the most awesome thing in Gears Of War. It feels epic. EVERYONE who played Gears of War agrees that active reloading really adds to the gameplay and experience.

But you wouldn't know. You never played GOW, you're just spewing your ignorant biased nonsense. Bah, you're a waste of time.

Yeap, I must be a waste of time who is biased and never played GoW because I don't like the game and some of its supposedly-popular features.  That must be it.  [/sarcasm]

Played the GoW demo.  Looked at 2 and 3.  I've said that all along.  I don't see any need to buy, install, and play through an entire game when I know from the demo and the gameplay videos on Youtube that it's not the sort of game I want. 

Words like "awesome" and "epic" and "gameplay experience" are red flags that a game is targeted at the console-action-twitch-combomastery crowd, and won't deliver what I want.

Actually I think your criticism misses the point. If you are willing to ignore completion scores and achievements (which from your post appears accurate, apologies if that is incorrect), Gears of War is completely enjoyable to finish on the Casual setting for the sole purpose of seeing the set-pieces, world, and experience the game without the twitch frustration. 

One thing Epic does really well is "holy #^%@" wtf just happened? Also, if you never give a game like Gears a chance (again, accepting that Multiplayer is extemporaneous for a player such as yourself and that Insanity isn't what you want), then for the low-low investment of 5 bucks and 5 hours (seriously, that's what you can pick up GoW1 for, or 15 bucks for both GoW 1/2), you are missing out on a pretty intense and visceral game which has a lot of strong qualities.

Gears of War is 100% completable without ever doing an active reload and just casually shooting Locust without ever worrying about a head-shot. Epic isn't stupid, they market to everyone (just have to let go of achievements).

[Killjoy Cutter]

This is how much I care about achievements ---->

Well, actually, I don't think I can blow up the picture enough for anyone to see it on their screen.

The last thing I want from a video-game is adrenaline and anxiety and frustration, and the requirement to master "challenging" new hand-eye reflexes.  I play games to relax, unwind, and distract. 

ME1 and ME2 were very capable of being what I want out of a game. 

Based on the demo, etc, the GoW series isn't.

So some people can just take a leap if they don't like me being completely off the GoW bandwagon.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 09 décembre 2011 - 05:50 .

[Phaelducan]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

This is how much I care about achievements ---->

Well, actually, I don't think I can blow up the picture enough for anyone to see it on their screen.

The last thing I want from a video-game is adrenaline and anxiety and frustration, and the requirement to master "challenging" new hand-eye reflexes. 

Right, that's what I'm saying. If you don't care about those things, then you can just play a game like Gears of War on casual, and all of the twitch becomes irrelevant. Seriously, you don' t need to do a single active reload, and the locust drop like flies. All I posit is that Gears of War is completely enjoyable and finishable by any gamer, from Billy-Bob Headshot Prestige 10 CoD master, to your 7-year old niece who loves her DS in unhealthy ways (for the record a 7-year old has no business playing Gears of War, I'm just citing the difficulty curve).

Give it a chance, it's 5 bucks and 5 hours. If you are anything like your average RPG fan you've probably spent more time than that powerleveling a skill in Skyrim that you have no intention of ever using (I know I have).

[Feanor_II]

I don't tink ME fits exactly in the same league of GoW.

[alex90c]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

This is how much I care about achievements ---->

Well, actually, I don't think I can blow up the picture enough for anyone to see it on their screen.

The last thing I want from a video-game is adrenaline and anxiety and frustration, and the requirement to master "challenging" new hand-eye reflexes.  I play games to relax, unwind, and distract. 

ME1 and ME2 were very capable of being what I want out of a game. 

Based on the demo, etc, the GoW series isn't.

So some people can just take a leap if they don't like me being completely off the GoW bandwagon.

lol, you think adrenalin is a bad thing? the adrenalin I got from the epic battle cutscene and then throughout the whole battle of Denerim was amazing. but still:

1. if you don't want it to be frustrating, put it on casual. when I refer to the game being tough as hell (i'm actually playing GoW3 on insane atm, and it is absolute torture, though in a fun way) I refer to hardcore and insane, not the lower difficulties.

2. I fail to see your problem with learning (as in, no, not to "master") hand-eye reflexes either, do you play games staring down at your keyboard/controller every five seconds to do something? even in ME1 and ME2 you can map powers to the 1-9 keys (and you can map powers on a controller too) and I really doubt you'll be in a firefight (regardless of difficulty) and then decide to stop what you're doing and gaze at your keyboard just to find the '1' so you can cast warp. and you can't honestly say you do, because if you do something enough times you get muscle memory regardless since you've repeated it enough, I mean any gamer could probably play on a 360/PS3 controller without looking at it ONCE during an entire sitting since they know where all the buttons are, the only problem is simply quickly relearning the buttons if you haven't played a game in a while.

3. anxiety? what?

If you take off your "PC master race" glasses, knock off the absurd hyperbole ("master challenging new hand-eye reflexes"? really? in MP, sure. MP is just merciless, but in the campaign? nah.) and actually judge games on their own merits then you'll probably enjoy a few more games. For example I used to look down on COD, but when I played MW2 I actually found the gameplay fun, and the story and setting quite interesting.

[Phaelducan]

Sometimes Adrenaline is a bad thing. I play Skyrim to relax, not to get my heart-rate up.

As to the difficulty and learning curve, I agree. Gears is accessible to everyone, provided they aren't concerned with achievements.

Finally, regarding PC's... just to put this thing to bed (yeah right, but I can hope), it is 100% accurate to say that the best PC's with the best components will outperform any console. That isn't debatable. However, if you want to play on your couch, or with buddies over, or on your big-screen... or maybe just for a fraction of the cost with "comparable" graphics and sound... well then consoles are perfectly valid.

Not worth the argument, really.

[alex90c]

Phaelducan wrote...

Sometimes Adrenaline is a bad thing. I play Skyrim to relax, not to get my heart-rate up.

As to the difficulty and learning curve, I agree. Gears is accessible to everyone, provided they aren't concerned with achievements.

Finally, regarding PC's... just to put this thing to bed (yeah right, but I can hope), it is 100% accurate to say that the best PC's with the best components will outperform any console. That isn't debatable. However, if you want to play on your couch, or with buddies over, or on your big-screen... or maybe just for a fraction of the cost with "comparable" graphics and sound... well then consoles are perfectly valid.

Not worth the argument, really.

I was referring to Killjoy Cutter's condescending attitude toward console gamers and referring to games like GoW as a twitch-fest and all that kind of stuff, I know full well that PC hardware is leagues better than console hardware, and that comes as no surprise considering the PS3 and 360 are like six/seven years old by now.

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

In Mass Effect you DON'T reload actively. You just press 1 button and it's done. In Gears of War, you actually have to do a little mini-game to reload your gun. You press the reload button once, a small cursor in a bar appears, starting to move to the right. Then you have to press the reload button again when the cursor hits the "sweet spot" of the little bar.
THAT'S active-reloading and it's a lot harder to master than using your abilities in Mass Effect 2, which are all but 1 simple button-press away.

Click here for a video demonstration of active reloading in Gears of War.

It's also exactly what games don't need -- silly mini-games in the middle of combat.

Agreed. Active reloading is not to my taste.

[Phaelducan]

So don't do it. The game is easily beatable without doing active reloads. Just fire until you run out, and the game reloads automatically for you. One step removed is just reloading in the "valid" window vs the "bonus" window for active reloading. It's pretty forgiving.

I was pretty anti-Gears for awhile too, but the game is pretty sweet. Lots of killer set-pieces and great action. The story is pretty simplistic, but from what I understand the lore is fairly deep if you read the books and what-not (I haven't, and probably won't, but whatevs).

Dropping the Hammer of Dawn is a pretty bad-ass piece of video-gaming.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

So don't do it. The game is easily beatable without doing active reloads. Just fire until you run out, and the game reloads automatically for you. One step removed is just reloading in the "valid" window vs the "bonus" window for active reloading. It's pretty forgiving.

I was pretty anti-Gears for awhile too, but the game is pretty sweet. Lots of killer set-pieces and great action. The story is pretty simplistic, but from what I understand the lore is fairly deep if you read the books and what-not (I haven't, and probably won't, but whatevs).

Dropping the Hammer of Dawn is a pretty bad-ass piece of video-gaming.

Have you seen how long the active reload actually takes in Gears, waiting for that meter to pass? I prefer ME2's system. I don't want developers spending resources to implement a feature that I'd rather not use/dislike.

Edit: I should point, far as I remember, all weapons have the same "reload" meter. Do the various weapons actually have different reload speeds, based on the meter? 

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 décembre 2011 - 06:47 .

[Phaelducan]

I'm not trying to sell you on active reloading, I'm merely pointing out that if THAT is the reason stopping you from playing one of this console generations marquee series, you can simply play the game without doing it. The whole campaign is equivalent to a few missions in ME2, particularly on casual.

The point of this thread is comparing cover shooters, and the active reloading mechanic from Gears is only one (optional) component in a much larger body of work for use in legit comparison.

I also prefer Mass Effect 2, as a whole, to Gears of War, but having played both extensively they both have a lot to offer "as video games." I wouldn't dream of not playing a landmark title simply because of one minor component that I can completely ignore if I so choose.

In fact, given the pacing of Gears, it's entirely possible to exhaust a clip, switch weapons, exhaust that one, repeat with the pistol, and chances are (on casual) you've finished the firefight. Then just reload them all in your transition to the next combat and it's a non-issue.

I think you are really making much ado about nothing, it's a small feature and easily circumvent-able.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...
Edit: I should point, far as I remember, all weapons have the same "reload" meter. Do the various weapons actually have different reload speeds, based on the meter? 

Yup.

They started using that more in Gears 3.

The Hammerburst takes a lot longer to active reload than a Lancer because of its power. Same with the shotguns.

[Il Divo]

Phaelducan wrote...

I'm not trying to sell you on active reloading, I'm merely pointing out that if THAT is the reason stopping you from playing one of this console generations marquee series, you can simply play the game without doing it. The whole campaign is equivalent to a few missions in ME2, particularly on casual.

The point of this thread is comparing cover shooters, and the active reloading mechanic from Gears is only one (optional) component in a much larger body of work for use in legit comparison.

I also prefer Mass Effect 2, as a whole, to Gears of War, but having played both extensively they both have a lot to offer "as video games." I wouldn't dream of not playing a landmark title simply because of one minor component that I can completely ignore if I so choose.

In fact, given the pacing of Gears, it's entirely possible to exhaust a clip, switch weapons, exhaust that one, repeat with the pistol, and chances are (on casual) you've finished the firefight. Then just reload them all in your transition to the next combat and it's a non-issue.

I think you are really making much ado about nothing, it's a small feature and easily circumvent-able.

I never said it was a big deal.  Killjoy expressed his dislike for the feature, and I agreed with him. It probably wouldn't make or break a sale to me. It certainly didn't stop me from playing Gears 1 or its sequel. I simply found the feature itself unappealing and the gameplay itself really encouraged the active reload function.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 décembre 2011 - 07:00 .