169 réponses à ce sujet

[Genshie]

Phaedon wrote...

Actually, I have just read the story leaks, and in the final mission, the final twist, Shepard is revealed to actually by a corridor where people shoot things by him/herself.

Pretty deep stuff.

Corridor within a corridor that is in a corridor!??!?

[RoboticWater]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

BlahDog wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

ME's gameplay system is limited by the effective range of powers. Designing huge open areas breaks the entire combat system so that isn't a feasible option. The best Bioware can do is create well designed maps that do allow flanking moves for both the player and the AI.

ME is actually not limited by the range of powers. While powers are slow and tend to be used in CQC fighting, it would be quite simple for Bioware to make them faster and much more useful at range. What does keep the maps small is the limiitation in technology. You can't have a ton of enemies calculating their all their AI at the same time, it kills the game, so Bioware must make the map smaller to accommodate this. Other things like level streaming come into mind here as well because UDK doesn't do things like that well either. But you must also consider the cover portion of ME. If Bioware put in huge maps, it would require them to put a lot of very conveinient boxes so people could effectively utilize the cover system. 

You are right about the technical limitations, but powers are the heart of ME's combat system and they cannot be used beyond a certain range.

Perhaps the most important reason why the Mako has been removed in ME2 is because it ruined the combat system. ME1 has an awful lot of situation where your only option is to use the Mako gun which basically changed gameplay into a poorman's Space Invaders (use your mobile turret to shoot the stationarry ones). It made your class, squad, weapons and powers completely irrelevant. To make the system work, enemies must be within range for caster to use their abilties, for Vanguards to Charge and so on.

Situation that can only be tackled with a sniper rifle, for example, either gimp everyone not carrying a sniper rifle or it turns things into a "snipe the enemy" minigame. Both options are terrible.

Is this conclusion based off lore? Because in that case it's entirely true but from a gameplay standpoint I'm pretty sure you can make powers go as long as they want.

[Phaedon]

Corridorception

[Dean_the_Young]

Genshie wrotte...

You know what is funny I can say the same thing to you about your definition. "True, but not in the way you think it is"= that sentence is alone is a complete opinion.

An analysis is not automatically an opinion.

So in other words I can you don't know the what hell your talking about either. Like I said its all about perspective.

This is a myth. The perspective of an elephant does not change that it is, in fact, an elephant.

And alright I will bite what is YOUR opinion/definition of fighting in a corridor since it seems YOU know exactly what it is.

A gameplay corridor is a linear environment in which the only directions of movement is forward or backward, and the only real progress is forward.

It does not need to be a literal corridor (a hallway with two walls and a ceiling), or literally linear (devoid of turns): the barriers to lateral movement could be of other sorts (a ledge) and vertical movement simply impossible (flight).

Nor do all corridors make corridor-centric gameplay. Mazes are a prime example. In Fallout, for example, the Vaults are primarily corridors... but by offering multiple paths to reach certain destinations, they avoid linearity. Offering multiple corridors, in other words, defeats a linear corridor.


While it is true that all games require players to go to specific points, not all games restrict HOW the player can get to them. The key to breaking out of a corridor isn't to remove a wall: it's to remove the restriction of moving around laterally and/or vertically and to approach an objective from completely different directions. A gameplay corridor is the nature of the path to an objective, not the fact that there's an objective that must be reached.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 07 janvier 2012 - 02:27 .

[Shepard the Leper]

BlahDog wrote...

Is this conclusion based off lore? Because in that case it's entirely true but from a gameplay standpoint I'm pretty sure you can make powers go as long as they want.

Go and play ME1 and try to target enemies at extreme range with powers. It cannot be done, technically it could, but it is impossible to target enemies the size of a couple pixels. It's even harder to setup AoE powers in the middle of a group at those ranges. In order to keep things managable a limits on mapsize is needed. I frankly don't see how very large maps would add anything to gameplay. I think the better ME2 maps (like fighting on the Shadow Broker's ship, the Collector Ship ambush, Horizon's final battle, Zaeed's and Kasumi's  LM final battles and a couple more) are great. They have enough space to properly maneuver, room for flanking, enemies who attack from all sides etc. Those things make combat more interesting, enemy snipers who one-shoot you miles away (and out of sight) do not. They're an annoyance only.

[Sebbe1337o]

I want to know how much of the game consists of Miranda's buttchek tbh.

[Genshie]

Dean_the_Young wrote..
A gameplay corridor is a linear environment in which the only directions of movement is forward or backward, and the only real progress is forward.

It does not need to be a literal corridor (a hallway with two walls and a ceiling), or literally linear (devoid of turns): the barriers to lateral movement could be of other sorts (a ledge) and vertical movement simply impossible (flight).

Nor do all corridors make corridor-centric gameplay. Mazes are a prime example. In Fallout, for example, the Vaults are primarily corridors... but by offering multiple paths to reach certain destinations, they avoid linearity. Offering multiple corridors, in other words, defeats a linear corridor.


While it is true that all games require players to go to specific points, not all games restrict HOW the player can get to them. The key to breaking out of a corridor isn't to remove a wall: it's to remove the restriction of moving around laterally and/or vertically and to approach an objective from completely different directions. A gameplay corridor is the nature of the path to an objective, not the fact that there's an objective that must be reached.

Your maze bit also goes against what you are trying to say since you have to go through the maze period to reach the other side to continue on in the story. By your definition the only way that it would work is if I had the choice to either go through the maze or find another way of reaching the other end without going through the maze. In the end even fallout is linear. Most if not all games including Skyrim eventually hit points where you can't go back but only go forward. They all end up being like the first Super Mario Bros.. See I can play this game too. And once again your perspective and your opinion.

Modifié par Genshie, 07 janvier 2012 - 02:50 .

[Genshie]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

BlahDog wrote...

Is this conclusion based off lore? Because in that case it's entirely true but from a gameplay standpoint I'm pretty sure you can make powers go as long as they want.

Go and play ME1 and try to target enemies at extreme range with powers. It cannot be done, technically it could, but it is impossible to target enemies the size of a couple pixels. It's even harder to setup AoE powers in the middle of a group at those ranges. In order to keep things managable a limits on mapsize is needed. I frankly don't see how very large maps would add anything to gameplay. I think the better ME2 maps (like fighting on the Shadow Broker's ship, the Collector Ship ambush, Horizon's final battle, Zaeed's and Kasumi's  LM final battles and a couple more) are great. They have enough space to properly maneuver, room for flanking, enemies who attack from all sides etc. Those things make combat more interesting, enemy snipers who one-shoot you miles away (and out of sight) do not. They're an annoyance only.

Those snipers in ME1 were really annoying by the way. I hate that sniping was really hard to do in ME1 while it seemed like the npcs were almost god like at doing it.

[The Elder King]

Genshie wrote...



]Those snipers in ME1 were really annoying by the way. I hate that sniping was really hard to do in ME1 while it seemed like the npcs were almost god like at doing it.

It was hard only at the beginning. If you put a lot of points in it, and if you have a powerful SR, you can complete a lot of missions sniping.

[Genshie]

hhh89 wrote...

Genshie wrote...



]Those snipers in ME1 were really annoying by the way. I hate that sniping was really hard to do in ME1 while it seemed like the npcs were almost god like at doing it.

It was hard only at the beginning. If you put a lot of points in it, and if you have a powerful SR, you can complete a lot of missions sniping.

But pistols were so good and you could snipe with the shotgun in that game too. The range on shotguns were ridiculous.

Modifié par Genshie, 07 janvier 2012 - 03:02 .

[daftPirate]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

A gameplay corridor is a linear environment in which the only directions of movement is forward or backward, and the only real progress is forward.

It does not need to be a literal corridor (a hallway with two walls and a ceiling), or literally linear (devoid of turns): the barriers to lateral movement could be of other sorts (a ledge) and vertical movement simply impossible (flight).

Nor do all corridors make corridor-centric gameplay. Mazes are a prime example. In Fallout, for example, the Vaults are primarily corridors... but by offering multiple paths to reach certain destinations, they avoid linearity. Offering multiple corridors, in other words, defeats a linear corridor.


While it is true that all games require players to go to specific points, not all games restrict HOW the player can get to them. The key to breaking out of a corridor isn't to remove a wall: it's to remove the restriction of moving around laterally and/or vertically and to approach an objective from completely different directions. A gameplay corridor is the nature of the path to an objective, not the fact that there's an objective that must be reached.

I agree with this insofar as acutal corridors are concerned, ie,

It does not need to be a literal corridor (a hallway with two walls and a ceiling), or literally linear (devoid of turns): the barriers to lateral movement could be of other sorts (a ledge) and vertical movement simply impossible (flight). 

:Unless you'd say that corridors DO NOT limit strategy, Mass Effect does have fair share of corridors, but it doesn't make up the majority of combat. In both ME1 and ME2 there were more rooms, and though you had to cross the room to progress, they weren't so linear that you couldn't strategize (something a real gameplay corridor would completely nullify). There space for you to put squad mates in ideal positions, for you to move and flank the enemy. Heck, you could sometimes get across the room and take out the enemy with exit at your back instead of before you. Sure, its not sandbox freedom, but I don't think those constitute corridors, but I'll be the first to acknowledge that this is my opinion.

[AlanC9]

Could someone maybe provide a workable definition of "corridor" here. Or at least a good guess as to what the OP means by it?

[Nashiktal]

I think what the op wants is more open and tactical battlefields like during tali's loyalty mission, and less confined and tight spaces like most of the N7 (and loyalty/recruit missions) were.

However its not just much battlefield design that restricts the player into "corridors" (which it actually isn't all that bad, for every corridor we usually have at least a few room with multiple tactical options), but the actual gameplay design of ME2 that restricts user movement.

With a few exceptions, ME2 gameplay encourages the player to sit in one spot during the entire battle. Shep is very weak health wise in all difficulties, and being out of cover at any moment is dangerous at best. However at the same time, being in cover makes you essentially untouchable unless certain uncommon enemies appear. (Husks/varren/praetorians) The only thing really encouraging you to move is when you run out of thermal clips, or to move up to engage hiding enemies.

However this is actually one aspect of ME3 I am actually not worried about, as what little we have seen is rather encouraging in both level design, and general combat. Shep has improved mobility and improved weaponry, same for his enemies. Moving out of cover seems less like the deathtrap it was in ME2 and seems like an actually viable tactic for non-vanguards.

[Candidate 88766]

How can they possibly answer?

If you skip all side missions and dialogue then most of ME1 and ME2 was corridor-esque shooting.

If you spent ages walking around, talking to every character, then about half of both ME1 and ME2 was corridor-esque shooting.

Its not really a question they can answer.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 07 janvier 2012 - 07:34 .

[ArkkAngel007]

Depends on how long I spend on the Normandy and doing all the non-combat stuff.

[ArkkAngel007]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

How can they possibly answer?

If you skip all side missions and dialogue then most of ME1 and ME2 was corridor-esque shooting.

If you spent ages walking around, talking to every character, then about half of both ME1 and ME2 was corridor-esque shooting.

Its not really a question they can answer.

The OP feels that ME and Dragon Age were too linear with their combat and don't provide enough options and exploration space in the game.  If you still can't tell where he is coming from, look at his name and know he made the "Skyrim-Era" thread.  There's nothing wrong with any of that, but he has preferences that lie outside of the design of Mass Effect.

[Sgt Stryker]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
There's nothing wrong with any of that, but he has preferences that lie outside of the design of Mass Effect.

You nailed it on the head.

Seriously OP, if you're expecting an open-world sandbox game, prepare to be disappointed. Mass Effect was never about that, barring the desolate uncharted worlds from ME1.

[Sebbe1337o]

Genshie wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Genshie wrote...



]Those snipers in ME1 were really annoying by the way. I hate that sniping was really hard to do in ME1 while it seemed like the npcs were almost god like at doing it.

It was hard only at the beginning. If you put a lot of points in it, and if you have a powerful SR, you can complete a lot of missions sniping.

But pistols were so good and you could snipe with the shotgun in that game too. The range on shotguns were ridiculous.

I rather liked that about the shotguns in ME1 actually, they were so OP, haha. and IRL there isn't SO much spread on a shotgun, so it was more "realistic" than it is now. I would like if it was like that in ME3, but balancing is pretty much going to make shotguns pretty useless at medium and longer range.

[argonian persona]

I personally wish playable gameplay area wasn't limited to 10 meters side to side. The illusion of epic draw distances don't cover up the reality of linear and small gameplay space.

[squee365]

Judging from footage in the pre-order videos, as well as other videos, combat areas are quite varied.
Especially this one:

Modifié par squee365, 07 janvier 2012 - 11:44 .

[Chala]

Arcian wrote...

This thread makes me want to stab someone.

That comment of yours fits perfectly with you avatar

[Candidate 88766]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

Arcian wrote...

This thread makes me want to stab someone.

That comment of yours fits perfectly with you avatar

You just beat me to it.

[nitefyre410]

Phaedon wrote...

Corridorception

 

A corridor within a corridor. 

[argonian persona]

Arcian wrote...

This thread makes me want to stab someone.

With the new Halo energy sword?