448 réponses à ce sujet

[SolveighS]

shunjalo wrote...

BioWare listens to it's players. They will implement it, you'll see... in the next installment of the franchise. All we have to do is wait for three or so years.

Now seriously, I believe holstering, as it was in previous two games, is definitely out. Best we can hope for is weapon lowering. Why that isn't in the game already is beyond me.

Maybe they do, maybe not

But to be seriously, a statement would be a polite action for all the people who are following this thread.
Why a feature like lowering/hoster your weapon (with a free moving camera like in the first two games) isn't already implemented.... i think that they thought it wouldn't be missed as they needed to free up memory for other moves/animations on the consoles.

Best regards,

Sol

Modifié par SolveighS, 27 février 2012 - 12:47 .

[g-w-m]

Not sure if already mentioned, but I had a thought..

Due to the supposed technical limitations involved in the holstered animations & combat animations available on the same area, perhaps the devs could patch in a lowered weapon stance on demand for the purpose of exploration. That animation is already available in the combat areas (infront of NPCs etc).

Its not exactly holstering but its probably the next best thing. I would be happy with this.

EDIT: Just found this already mentioned several times before. Definately a good idea! 

Modifié par g-w-m, 27 février 2012 - 07:46 .

[Poison_Berrie]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

I disagree with this on many levels its time for this franchise to evolve and get better . if removing it makes the game better then I am all for it .  If It can not evlove it will be like Resident Evil and MGS series what is it going to take for the 4th game for this franchise to offer something new . This was a worthless feature that made no sense . 

It was neither worthless nor did it make no sense and removing it doesn't make the game better.
At best it needed to go to make room for some other features. Those features might make the game better (might. I don't think Kinect is something every ME3 player will find usefull), but the exclusion of holstering doesn't actually improve the game.

The game doesn't need to get rid of it to "evolve" as you make it out to be.
The entire idea that games need to "evolve" reasoning is non-sense, as well. Sequels should improve on the previous titles, yes, but where does this idea come from that each game needs to somehow reinvent itself for it to be any good.
Games do not become bad because they don't reinvent themselves, but because the developers made some bad design decisions (be they gameplay or story or even art direction).
Please stop throwing buzz-words around like that. Using regular explenations might actually help bring your point across better.

Because I still don't see how you can even be against a lower weapon animation. Or having the option of holstering, as long as it doesn't take away from other mechanics.
The way I see it, you somehow see holstering as some sort of step back from the game...

[shunjalo]

Removal of such a useful feature, without providing adequate alternative, was a bad decision. However, I find weapon lowering a good compromise, if only developers would implement the ability for the players to do it themselves. I am baffled about it: they took the time to make something like a headshot decapitation (which I didn't even notice until pointed out in the forums), but they didn't have the time to implement manual weapon lowering, when animation is already there. It is there, loaded into memory, just waiting to be used. All it took was to replace holstering with lowering, something that could have been done without much fuss during the development. And someone gave it a thought and said "Nah, we don't need it. People don't use that anyway." It is at times like this that I wish I was a video games developer, so I could understand the thought process behind these kinds of decisions. But enough about that. I still have hopes that they will listen to us, and take the time to patch it in. It's the most reasonable thing to do.

Modifié par shunjalo, 27 février 2012 - 12:35 .

[supervoyant]

Any hope they'll put back weapon holster? A 1st day patch?

[CerberusSoldier]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

I disagree with this on many levels its time for this franchise to evolve and get better . if removing it makes the game better then I am all for it .  If It can not evlove it will be like Resident Evil and MGS series what is it going to take for the 4th game for this franchise to offer something new . This was a worthless feature that made no sense . 

It was neither worthless nor did it make no sense and removing it doesn't make the game better.
At best it needed to go to make room for some other features. Those features might make the game better (might. I don't think Kinect is something every ME3 player will find usefull), but the exclusion of holstering doesn't actually improve the game.

The game doesn't need to get rid of it to "evolve" as you make it out to be.
The entire idea that games need to "evolve" reasoning is non-sense, as well. Sequels should improve on the previous titles, yes, but where does this idea come from that each game needs to somehow reinvent itself for it to be any good.
Games do not become bad because they don't reinvent themselves, but because the developers made some bad design decisions (be they gameplay or story or even art direction).
Please stop throwing buzz-words around like that. Using regular explenations might actually help bring your point across better.

Because I still don't see how you can even be against a lower weapon animation. Or having the option of holstering, as long as it doesn't take away from other mechanics.
The way I see it, you somehow see holstering as some sort of step back from the game...

  



Its not that I see it as a step back its the fact its in the game in non combat areas . its in the game just not the way you and everyone else wants .  it makes no logical sense to holster your weapon in a combat zone . Last I checked this was a war story game and some of you want to stand around a look at the view . well fine you can do it in non combat areas . I plan on rejecting and refusing to down load any patch that reinstates this . I support EA's decision on removing this feature .  Its totally stupid to always have to draw a weapon in 1 and 2 when enerting a combat zone . 

[TheGHalfMan]

CerberusSoldier wrote...

Poison_Berrie wrote...

CerberusSoldier wrote...

I disagree with this on many levels its time for this franchise to evolve and get better . if removing it makes the game better then I am all for it .  If It can not evlove it will be like Resident Evil and MGS series what is it going to take for the 4th game for this franchise to offer something new . This was a worthless feature that made no sense . 

It was neither worthless nor did it make no sense and removing it doesn't make the game better.
At best it needed to go to make room for some other features. Those features might make the game better (might. I don't think Kinect is something every ME3 player will find usefull), but the exclusion of holstering doesn't actually improve the game.

The game doesn't need to get rid of it to "evolve" as you make it out to be.
The entire idea that games need to "evolve" reasoning is non-sense, as well. Sequels should improve on the previous titles, yes, but where does this idea come from that each game needs to somehow reinvent itself for it to be any good.
Games do not become bad because they don't reinvent themselves, but because the developers made some bad design decisions (be they gameplay or story or even art direction).
Please stop throwing buzz-words around like that. Using regular explenations might actually help bring your point across better.

Because I still don't see how you can even be against a lower weapon animation. Or having the option of holstering, as long as it doesn't take away from other mechanics.
The way I see it, you somehow see holstering as some sort of step back from the game...

  



Its not that I see it as a step back its the fact its in the game in non combat areas . its in the game just not the way you and everyone else wants .  it makes no logical sense to holster your weapon in a combat zone . Last I checked this was a war story game and some of you want to stand around a look at the view . well fine you can do it in non combat areas . I plan on rejecting and refusing to down load any patch that reinstates this . I support EA's decision on removing this feature .  Its totally stupid to always have to draw a weapon in 1 and 2 when enerting a combat zone . 

What do you have against Holstering? I'm serious, why are you on a personal vendetta to see such a feature removed?  I believe we the supporters; that USED this method of ROLE PLAY, both in, Mass Effect 1 and 2 derserve an explanation? Why do we have to repeat ourselves? Mass Effect : was designed in-mind for players that want to have a CHOICE in their EXPERIENCE and a SENSE of IMMERSION. Which also applies to Holstering: an OPTION not a REQUIREMENT.

P.S., next time you mention "facts", "EA's choice?:huh:" you are mistaken. For you see, the choice resides with BioWare, since they are in fact  the developers not a publisher.

So, if you don't mind here are some Fun Facts:) about Mass Effect 1 and 2 combat zones. 

Fun Fact Number 1:D: In Mass Effect 1, when in combat area, weapon holsterd, Commander Shepard automatically draws his/her weapon.

Fun Fact Number 2:lol:: Applies to ME 1 and ME 2, when in combat area, weapon can not be holsterd, untill the situation has been rectified. 

[SynheKatze]

I don't know why this thread is lost between the massive spoiler threads.

Bump.

[evenstars]

I also wish the holster option would be patched into the game, though I doubt that it will. <_< The first time I played the demo, one of the first things I did was go through all the controller buttons trying to get Shep to put away the gun (figuring that the button to holster must have been changed).  Then I figured that maybe the option just wasn't in the demo and ended up being disappointed when I read that it was totally removed from non-hub areas.  Some people may not mind, and yes it isn't my biggest concern with the game, but it is something that a lot of people liked and got used to having as an option.

[Matt VT Schlo]

Have they answered why this was possible in ME1 and ME2 but somehow a memory issue in ME3? 

Brenon Holmes wrote...


... but I'll just mention it again quickly since I'm not sure that it's clear. The main issue was with the set of exploration idles and locomotion anims of which there are a significant number.

Hope that's a bit more clear

 

 First, thanks a lot for responding, Brandon. Much appreciation, but I will be honest, I have no clue what that even is? LOL, I must be dumb!

Modifié par Matt VT Schlo, 28 février 2012 - 08:08 .

[Battlepope190]

Matt VT Schlo wrote...

Have they answered why this was possible in ME1 and ME2 but somehow a memory issue in ME3? 

Brenon Holmes wrote...


... but I'll just mention it again quickly since I'm not sure that it's clear. The main issue was with the set of exploration idles and locomotion anims of which there are a significant number.

Hope that's a bit more clear

 

 First, thanks a lot for responding, Brandon. Much appreciation, but I will be honest, I have no clue what that even is? LOL, I must be dumb!

Probably because of all the new animations we have, thanks to Shepard's new moves, such as the combat roll and the redundant 2 melee attacks (standard bash and "heavy" omni-tool attack)

Like I keep saying; they should've have added anything new if they couldn't keep what we already had (for TWO FRIKKEN GAMES!) at the same time.

[Poison_Berrie]

Matt VT Schlo wrote...

Brenon Holmes wrote...

... but I'll just mention it again quickly since I'm not sure that it's clear. The main issue was with the set of exploration idles and locomotion anims of which there are a significant number.

Hope that's a bit more clear

 

 First, thanks a lot for responding, Brandon. Much appreciation, but I will be honest, I have no clue what that even is? LOL, I must be dumb!

Well when you have your weapon drawn you have to have animation for everything you do and you also need a somewhat indentical set of animations for when the weapon is holstered (things like vaulting/rolling, cover and weapon related animations aren't needed). By allowing you not to holster your weapon they don't need to load the animations for when you are not carrying a weapon, thus saving them a few megabytes of memory.  

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 29 février 2012 - 09:00 .

[DragonRageGT]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Well when you have your weapon drawn you have to have animation for everything you do and you also need a somewhat indentical set of animations for when the weapon is holstered (things like vaulting/rolling, cover and weapon related animations aren't needed). By allowing you not to holster your weapon they don't need to load the animations for when you are not carrying a weapon, thus saving them a few megabytes of memory.  

But wasn't it done in ME2? How come it could be done then? Has the engine changed? What did change to make it impossible now? Cost reduction? Previous game was too complex and had more features than needed? Again?

[ncknck]

I feel like "memory" is the new buzzword for excuses. No holster? Memory. Bad textures? Memory. Depressing endings? Not enough memory. Game sucks? Not enough memory for the good stuff.

MEMORY.

[Irx]

Bioware never listens to fans unless its gay romances or similar crap.

Remember how they said that Shepard not removing his/her helmet while kissing/drinking in ME2 is a design decision?..

[ncknck]

The real problem im afraid is PS3's "unique" architecture and policies for not allowing low level access. And UE3 doesnt exactly make things better. Blame Sony. 

Modifié par ncknck, 29 février 2012 - 11:33 .

[Matt VT Schlo]

Thanks guys! Appreciate the understanding

[Karimloo]

HERES AN IDEA.

Since you're in a battlefield, DON'T HOLSTER YOUR WEAPON, instead just lower it to your chest like your squadmates do. During a ceasefire.

Then in combat he raises it up again.

[ManyDeadCats]

They can't hear you because their ears are stuffed with the cash you gave them.

[Poison_Berrie]

DragonRageGT wrote...

But wasn't it done in ME2? How come it could be done then? Has the engine changed? What did change to make it impossible now? Cost reduction? Previous game was too complex and had more features than needed? Again?

New features added to the game(Kinect, combat rolls and other animations), perhaps some graphic tweaks. 
The idea is that what they've added to the game uses more memory than a console has (512 mb). By cutting certain things (this may be a more visible thing, but there's undoubtably been some other things cut out) they reduce that to an acceptable level.

Though people wonder if that could have been avoided if they optimized certain aspects more. 

[dhale1975]

bump

[TheGHalfMan]

Bump to the top again!

[RioNHale]

bumped.

wtb my old me2 out-of-combat-free-roam-camera that came with holstering my weapon for me3.

Modifié par RioNHale, 29 août 2012 - 11:33 .

[known_hero]

Karimloo wrote...

HERES AN IDEA.

Since you're in a battlefield, DON'T HOLSTER YOUR WEAPON, instead just lower it to your chest like your squadmates do. During a ceasefire.

Then in combat he raises it up again.

Shepard lowered her weapon in the last mission of Leviathan. I called that a victory for you guys.