712 réponses à ce sujet

[Sr.Prize]

So holstering a gun in a combat environment is more of a immersive experience than giving voice commands?

[Aradace]

MrFob wrote...

Aradace wrote...

There are just some things that should be "common sense" fantasy world
or not.  And outright holstering your weapon in a combat zone with
potential hostiles at every turn, that's just stupid imo.  Again, doing
so and you're just asking to be shot.

The thing is, you have a couple of "combat" areas in ME2 which are not really combat areas at all (until something surprising happens). E.g. during Samara's recruitment. When I walk from the space port to the crime scene and suddenly stumble into the Eclipse mercs. I like to keep my gun holstered until I actually encounter them. It is pretty silly that they are in the middle of an area which is barred off by police anyway but I also feel silly walking around with my gun drawn until something happens. Another example is the wreckage of the MSV Estevanico where you don't even encounter a single enemy but only need to draw you gun to shoot a bulkhead and leap over some obstacles.
These are just examples, there are a couple of these areas and I guess there will be similar situations in ME3.
There are other reasons like nicer screenshots, etc. but the main thing is that you take away another element of control from the player which you should never if it can somehow be avoided, which it can at least n PC.

Missing the point.  And you even make that point when you said "Until something surprising happens".  If you go into an area (barred off or no) when you are told "hey, there's mercs over there" with your weapon holstered, hoping that nothing is going to happen, that's not only silly, but naive.  You were told that there are potential hostiles over there.  The moment that entered the equation, weapons should be free the moment you cross the barred area (which they even do for you as a matter of fact in that mission)

[Capeo]

Aradace wrote...

LGTX wrote...

I definitely remember being able to holster my weapons in ME2 AFTER the combat was over. The squaddies would even shout out something like "that was all of them!" when I did.

Yea, you could.  Which I personally found silly myself.  You never, EVER put away your weapon in a potentially hot zone, secure or not.  Because "secure" doesnt mean "safe", it just means you have controll over it.  In my opinion, the way ME3 does it a bit more "realistic" in that sense than ME2 was. 

Edit: @Lil - I agree to the last bit.  When your sight would cross that of a comrade, we were trained to either raise the weapon, barrel to the sky so to speak, or to graze it along the ground, depending on the environment we were in.  So yea, in that regard, they probably "should" do something about that.  But outright holstering it? That's no real complaint at all.

There's nothing "realistic" about having your gun shouldered or a pistol in outstretched hands constantly no matter where you are in a "combat zone".  You do not shoulder your firearm while moving unless approaching an  unknown target in a wide formation slowly.  Soldiers point their guns at the ground when moving so they don't shoot their fellows soldiers in the back.  Actual combat zones don't look like Rambo.  The only time you'll see a soldier moving fairly quickly with his firearm shouldered is in controlled building clearing or other very confined areas where your target is expected to be close to you.  The fact being hitting a target while moving is hard for even the best marksman.   Otherwise your movement is covered by men taking a fixed position until you can do the same.

Every other game on the planet allows you to holster your weapon or automatically lowers your weapon if you're not aiming.  In ME1 + 2 it served the dual purpose of having the FOV widen and increasing walk speed so you can explore.  And walking up to somebody to talk to them with a pistol or rifle inches from their nose is the stupidest looking thing ever.  

On top of that, the whole point is every area that is now going to be a "combat zone" in ME3 was not so in earlier games.  There were areas outside of hubs where you would not expect to be attacked but could still pull out your gun or use powers if you wanted.  There were intentional pauses in the action to explore and some areas such as the crashed ship in N7 side mission or the Normandy crash site that were puzzles or purely exploration.  Now you'd have to roll around like a dope with your gun out in those areas.  Apparently everone in this game has forearms of steel.

Hell, even Gears, which is basically blast your way from one checkpoint to the next, has the characters lower their guns to a comfortable position when not aiming.

[Aradace]

@Capeo - thank you, you made my point without knowing you made it. "Lowering" your weapon should be the most you do. Outright holstering it (which apparently again is the point some are missing including yourself because i even said something similar to what you stated a few posts back had you actually taken the time to look.) is what Im debating to be silly. Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. In between guard duties and live fire excercises on the range, all we did was drill and drill and drill Urban assault tactics.

[Kabanya101]

The only time I ever holstered my weapon, was to make shep run faster, that's all. I find it useless to have that command. I mean people, lets all take in a breath of common sense, and end all of the immerion talk.

Hypothetical situation:
You are dropped in a hotzone. Your on a landing pad fending off enemies. All enemies are dead after a few minutes of combat. You hear over the comm channel from Bravo team, you have more enemies ahead, stay alert.

Who in their right mind who holster their gun and take a look at the scenery aound them, even if it is a game. Enemies are ahead and they could be closing on your position, and your going to put your gun away just to take a wiff of the tulips nearby.

I'm not one of those people who complain about the game not being realistic and all that, but seriously, get some commmon sense. It was a good feature, but if you really thought about it, it was pointless to have. I'd have that replaced for something more feasible than that.

[Aradace]

Kabanya101 wrote...

The only time I ever holstered my weapon, was to make shep run faster, that's all. I find it useless to have that command. I mean people, lets all take in a breath of common sense, and end all of the immerion talk.

This alone pretty much encompasses everything.  Especially the "immersion" talk.  This isnt dragon age folks.

[Capeo]

Aradace wrote...

@Capeo - thank you, you made my point without knowing you made it. "Lowering" your weapon should be the most you do. Outright holstering it (which apparently again is the point some are missing including yourself because i even said something similar to what you stated a few posts back had you actually taken the time to look.) is what Im debating to be silly. Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. In between guard duties and live fire excercises on the range, all we did was drill and drill and drill Urban assault tactics.

You're still missing the point.  Not every area that isn't a hub is a combat zone.  There are some that are just puzzles or exploration.  Now there are only two things in the game.  Hub or your hands out like a moron and nothing in between. 

There's also the issue of walking ridiculously slow and no ability to widen the FOV by holstering your weapon.  

[Vapaa]

Aradace wrote...

For some reason I cant bold on the forums on my notebook pc but if I could, I'd bold the part where you said "Lowering her/his weapon" (yes I put the extra his in there because I run a male shep )  because in reality, that is the closest thing to "holstering" you're going to get in a hot zone. 

Yes, sorry, that's the habit of playing Femshep ><

Personally I find it nice to have that option, since more options are always a good thing, but it had to be taken down for a good reason so that's okay

[Capeo]

Aradace wrote...

Kabanya101 wrote...

The only time I ever holstered my weapon, was to make shep run faster, that's all. I find it useless to have that command. I mean people, lets all take in a breath of common sense, and end all of the immerion talk.

This alone pretty much encompasses everything.  Especially the "immersion" talk.  This isnt dragon age folks.

Huh?  ME is supposed to be a choice based RPG.  Immersion is everything.

[Aradace]

Capeo wrote...

Aradace wrote...

@Capeo - thank you, you made my point without knowing you made it. "Lowering" your weapon should be the most you do. Outright holstering it (which apparently again is the point some are missing including yourself because i even said something similar to what you stated a few posts back had you actually taken the time to look.) is what Im debating to be silly. Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. In between guard duties and live fire excercises on the range, all we did was drill and drill and drill Urban assault tactics.

You're still missing the point.  Not every area that isn't a hub is a combat zone.  There are some that are just puzzles or exploration.  Now there are only two things in the game.  Hub or your hands out like a moron and nothing in between. 

There's also the issue of walking ridiculously slow and no ability to widen the FOV by holstering your weapon.  

How do you know there are puzzle areas in ME3?  Because the demo I played had nothing of the sort.  And again, the biggest point that people are missing is that they are assuming that based off of COMBAT in the DEMO, that they wont be able to holster their weapons.  You know what? Im going to go all Office Space here;  Im going to make a mat.  And on this mat, Im going to draw and put different conclusions on it.  So that when we get into debates like this, I can just roll out the mat for people and they can jump to the different conclusions on it.  It'll be like hop-scotch, only it'll be conclusions instead of numbers. 


Edit: "Immersion is everything?" Please tell me this is anything other than a personal truth or opinion.  Because immersion certainly isnt "everything" to me.

Modifié par Aradace, 22 février 2012 - 02:05 .

[voteDC]

In regard to the realism aspect of holstering your gun in a potential hostile area.

Wouldn't the arrival of shields/kinect barriers change the mind-set of how you carry yourself and your weapon in those situations?

After all they've been shown to take a rocket hit to the face area and give the person nothing more than a moments pause.

Perhaps I'm thinking too much on this 

Modifié par voteDC, 22 février 2012 - 02:11 .

[Aradace]

voteDC wrote...

In regard to the realism aspect of holstering your gun in a potential hostile area.

Wouldn't the arrival of shields/kinect barriers change the mind-set of how you carry yourself and your weapon in those situations?

After all they've been shown to take a rocket hit to the face area and give the person nothing more than a moments pause.

Perhaps I'm thinking too much on this 

To private Joe Snuffy, yea, it might change his mentality.  But not a an actual combat hardened soldier.

[Capeo]

Aradace wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Aradace wrote...

@Capeo - thank you, you made my point without knowing you made it. "Lowering" your weapon should be the most you do. Outright holstering it (which apparently again is the point some are missing including yourself because i even said something similar to what you stated a few posts back had you actually taken the time to look.) is what Im debating to be silly. Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. In between guard duties and live fire excercises on the range, all we did was drill and drill and drill Urban assault tactics.

You're still missing the point.  Not every area that isn't a hub is a combat zone.  There are some that are just puzzles or exploration.  Now there are only two things in the game.  Hub or your hands out like a moron and nothing in between. 

There's also the issue of walking ridiculously slow and no ability to widen the FOV by holstering your weapon.  

How do you know there are puzzle areas in ME3?  Because the demo I played had nothing of the sort.  And again, the biggest point that people are missing is that they are assuming that based off of COMBAT in the DEMO, that they wont be able to holster their weapons.  You know what? Im going to go all Office Space here;  Im going to make a mat.  And on this mat, Im going to draw and put different conclusions on it.  So that when we get into debates like this, I can just roll out the mat for people and they can jump to the different conclusions on it.  It'll be like hop-scotch, only it'll be conclusions instead of numbers. 


Edit: "Immersion is everything?" Please tell me this is anything other than a personal truth or opinion.  Because immersion certainly isnt "everything" to me.

No jumping to conclusions.  The lack of holstering has confirmed by devs a long time back.  Why do think so many threads exist asking to bring it back?

And my opinion on immersion is just as valid as your opinion on it.  Except that I can argue that immersion is a key concept in most modern games and something players and developers of often cite as an important factor in making a good game.  Why do you think devs spend millions of developing realistic animations and mo-cap?  Why do you think they spend so much on voice acting or the inclusion of as many options as possible?  One reason: immersion.

[Aradace]

Capeo wrote...

Aradace wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Aradace wrote...

@Capeo - thank you, you made my point without knowing you made it. "Lowering" your weapon should be the most you do. Outright holstering it (which apparently again is the point some are missing including yourself because i even said something similar to what you stated a few posts back had you actually taken the time to look.) is what Im debating to be silly. Trust me, you're preaching to the choir. In between guard duties and live fire excercises on the range, all we did was drill and drill and drill Urban assault tactics.

You're still missing the point.  Not every area that isn't a hub is a combat zone.  There are some that are just puzzles or exploration.  Now there are only two things in the game.  Hub or your hands out like a moron and nothing in between. 

There's also the issue of walking ridiculously slow and no ability to widen the FOV by holstering your weapon.  

How do you know there are puzzle areas in ME3?  Because the demo I played had nothing of the sort.  And again, the biggest point that people are missing is that they are assuming that based off of COMBAT in the DEMO, that they wont be able to holster their weapons.  You know what? Im going to go all Office Space here;  Im going to make a mat.  And on this mat, Im going to draw and put different conclusions on it.  So that when we get into debates like this, I can just roll out the mat for people and they can jump to the different conclusions on it.  It'll be like hop-scotch, only it'll be conclusions instead of numbers. 


Edit: "Immersion is everything?" Please tell me this is anything other than a personal truth or opinion.  Because immersion certainly isnt "everything" to me.

No jumping to conclusions.  The lack of holstering has confirmed by devs a long time back.  Why do think so many threads exist asking to bring it back?

And my opinion on immersion is just as valid as your opinion on it.  Except that I can argue that immersion is a key concept in most modern games and something players and developers of often cite as an important factor in making a good game.  Why do you think devs spend millions of developing realistic animations and mo-cap?  Why do you think they spend so much on voice acting or the inclusion of as many options as possible?  One reason: immersion.

To the first, my mistake then.  I hadnt kept track of the thread(s) regarding it.  But still, holstering is still a very minor issue imho and really doesnt warrant all the hate that folks are giving the game because of it.  In all honesty, if something like holstering is so vital to some people that they dont want to play the game because of it, then they have far more problems in their lives than simply worrying about if they're going to like the game or not.  To the second, I can go into a philosophical debate with you on what the four categories of truth are.  The only one that is absolute is "universal truth" of the 4.  The others are subject to societies and groups at large.  Nothing in your post, much like mine and any other post I make, falls under the category of universal truth.  So until you can somehow spin "immersion" into fitting into that category.  It will, no matter what you say, be nothing more than an opinion.  Valid as it may be to you or others.  

Modifié par Aradace, 22 février 2012 - 02:25 .

[charmingcharlie]

Aradace wrote...   But still, holstering is still a very minor issue imho and really doesnt warrant all the hate that folks are giving the game because of it.  In all honesty, if something like holstering is so vital to some people that they dont want to play the game because of it, then they have far more problems in their lives than simply worrying about if they're going to like the game or not.

Just because it is a minor issue to YOU does not give you the right to try and degrade and insult people that do have an issue with this.   A lot of people will miss the holstering command purely because it looks a hell of a lot better than having Shepard running around an empty battlefield with his/her gun held stretched out pointing at everything.  It is an issue for them because it ruins their gaming experience and does not reflect whatsoever on "problems in their lives" as you put it.

Now you obviously don't have a problem with the fact you cannot holster and you have made the point that you don't consider it important that is fair enough I am not going to try and change YOUR mind.  I am certainly not going to insult and question your lifestyle because of it.  How about you extend the same courtesy for the many that will miss holstering ?

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 22 février 2012 - 02:53 .

[Aradace]

charmingcharlie wrote...

Aradace wrote...   But still, holstering is still a very minor issue imho and really doesnt warrant all the hate that folks are giving the game because of it.  In all honesty, if something like holstering is so vital to some people that they dont want to play the game because of it, then they have far more problems in their lives than simply worrying about if they're going to like the game or not.

Just because it is a minor issue to YOU does not give you the right to try and degrade and insult people that do have an issue with this.   A lot of people will miss the holstering command purely because it looks a hell of a lot better than having Shepard running around an empty battlefield with his/her gun held stretched out pointing at everything.  It is an issue for them because it ruins their gaming experience and does not reflect whatsoever on "problems in their lives" as you put it.

Now you obviously don't have a problem with the fact you cannot holster and you have made the point that you don't consider it important that is fair enough I am not going to try and change YOUR mind.  I am certainly not going to insult and question your lifestyle because of it.  How about you extend the same courtesy for the many that will miss holstering ?

First of all, you should follow your own advice.  If I dont have the so-called right to state my opinion, then you shouldnt have the right to tell me that I dont have the right.  There's no double standard here, you have to abide by it as well.  Plus, you forgot the part where I actually stated that it's my opinion.  Secondly, I can understand degredation of "gaming experience".  But for something so trivial to affect that?  I just dont get it I guess.  *shrugs* For me, If I want what I feel to be immersive gameplay, I'll just simply call up my old DnD group and we'll start up a campaign.  It's almost as silly as the folks who used to argue back in the day that they felt every encounter should be able to be solved through diplomacy with minmal combat.  Again, in case you missed it, is my opinion.  Thirdly, it was merely an assement I was making.  If you took it as an insult then that's your fault for taking what I said out of context.    And with that, I bow out because the servers in ToR are back up.  

Modifié par Aradace, 22 février 2012 - 03:11 .

[daftPirate]

Personally, I don't mind the not holstering. It makes sense to me. Shepard's on a battlefield, his weapon should be drawn, whether he sees enemies in front of him or not. A soldier doesn't holster their weapon just because it looks like all the enemies are dead. Sure it might look better if he lowered the weapon some between fights, but there's no reason to holster it. He doesn't know what's around the next corner. It always annoyed me in ME1 when Shepard and Co holstered their guns every time they used an elevator, despite frequently being inside an enemy base.

[Thoth_Amon]

Sr.Prize wrote...

So holstering a gun in a combat environment is more of a immersive experience than giving voice commands?

Yes, when it negatively affects two versions that won't be having voice commands.  Both the PS3 and PC versions are gimped in favor of a cheap gimmick.

[Texhnolyze101]

Aradace wrote...

charmingcharlie wrote...

Aradace wrote...   But still, holstering is still a very minor issue imho and really doesnt warrant all the hate that folks are giving the game because of it.  In all honesty, if something like holstering is so vital to some people that they dont want to play the game because of it, then they have far more problems in their lives than simply worrying about if they're going to like the game or not.

Just because it is a minor issue to YOU does not give you the right to try and degrade and insult people that do have an issue with this.   A lot of people will miss the holstering command purely because it looks a hell of a lot better than having Shepard running around an empty battlefield with his/her gun held stretched out pointing at everything.  It is an issue for them because it ruins their gaming experience and does not reflect whatsoever on "problems in their lives" as you put it.

Now you obviously don't have a problem with the fact you cannot holster and you have made the point that you don't consider it important that is fair enough I am not going to try and change YOUR mind.  I am certainly not going to insult and question your lifestyle because of it.  How about you extend the same courtesy for the many that will miss holstering ?

First of all, you should follow your own advice.  If I dont have the so-called right to state my opinion, then you shouldnt have the right to tell me that I dont have the right.  There's no double standard here, you have to abide by it as well.  Plus, you forgot the part where I actually stated that it's my opinion.  Secondly, I can understand degredation of "gaming experience".  But for something so trivial to affect that?  I just dont get it I guess.  *shrugs* For me, If I want what I feel to be immersive gameplay, I'll just simply call up my old DnD group and we'll start up a campaign.  It's almost as silly as the folks who used to argue back in the day that they felt every encounter should be able to be solved through diplomacy with minmal combat.  Again, in case you missed it, is my opinion.  Thirdly, it was merely an assement I was making.  If you took it as an insult then that's your fault for taking what I said out of context.    And with that, I bow out because the servers in ToR are back up.  

Have fun with TORtanic

[charmingcharlie]

Aradace wrote... First of all, you should follow your own advice.  If I dont have the so-called right to state my opinion, then you shouldnt have the right to tell me that I dont have the right.  There's no double standard here, you have to abide by it as well. 

Please point to the part in my post where I said you COULD NOT state your opinion.  Infact I went out of my way to say that you should state your opinion on the holster issue but do it without criticising or insulting those that do not share your opinion.

Aradace wrote... But for something so trivial to affect that?  I just dont get it I guess.  *shrugs* For me, If I want what I feel to be immersive gameplay, I'll just simply call up my old DnD group and we'll start up a campaign.

Yes it is trivial to you and yes you don't get it that is fair enough, you keep saying that.  We get that you don't get it, I am not going to try and change your mind nor make some disparaging remark about your life just because I disagree with you.   I personally cannot understand how people don't have a problem with Shepard running around empty battlefields with his/her weapon held out at ALL times which is what we are looking at here.  Most people are asking for holstering not because they "want" to actually holster their gun, they just want to put the gun in a "non-combat" position because it looks damn stupid having Shepard running around like he/she does with the gun held like that.

Aradace wrote...  Thirdly, it was merely an assement I was making.  If you took it as an insult then that's your fault for taking what I said out of context.    And with that, I bow out because the servers in ToR are back up.  

No it wasn't an "assessment" it was an insult and you intended it as such just because you don't agree with those calling for the holster option to be put back in so you have to question people's lives because of it

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 22 février 2012 - 03:37 .

[DellBoi]

Is it possible it will come out as a patch for the PC version?

Or maybe it will be possible for some intelligent member of the community to make a mod that allows holstering in any location? It surely won't be hard since all the animations are there.

[tonnactus]

Aradace wrote...
There are just some things that should be "common sense" fantasy world or not.
And outright holstering your weapon in a combat zone with potential hostiles at every turn, that's just stupid imo.  Again, doing so and you're just asking to be shot.

So corpsmen are stupid...

Modifié par tonnactus, 22 février 2012 - 05:55 .

[tonnactus]

DellBoi wrote...

Is it possible it will come out as a patch for the PC version?
 

I wont because the reason has nothing to do with "limitations". Its an oversight they simply didnt want to fix and they already find a laughable excuse for it a lot of people believe: "memory limitations" on consoles.

[Jarlaxlecq]

Brenon Holmes wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Brenon, could you bring more details into that? It's a RAM memory issue or disc-space file size issue? It's a problem exclusive to the demo or the full game too?

It's a runtime memory cost, not a disk space issue. You need those anims for the non-combat areas... so they're going to be on disk regardless.

In order to support exploration in the combat areas, you'd need to have all the anims loaded in memory... so that would be things like the 8-way walks, runs, incline anims, idles, idle twitches, male/female variant overrides, eye noise... etc.

All in all (iirc) it came out to around 2-4MB, which is relatively significant. Also, as you've guessed, yes - I'm referring to the main game (as well as the demo).

I blame the PS3 and its limited memory as being the lowest common denominator that cause something as basic as holdering to be cut

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Holstering > Unnecessary Head Blowing
Because not enough memory available.

I want to get screenshots in holster mode. Dammit!

Modifié par Jedi Sentinel Arian, 22 février 2012 - 06:02 .