176 réponses à ce sujet

[Tigerman123]

ME has always had a threadbare and fairly nonsensical overarching story, which is why I'm completely nonplussed by those who obsess over the ending, it isn't something worth getting worked up over.

Also, the non combat and choose your own adventure stuff have been done far better by other series, in fact they're awful

[Icinix]

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Bazedragon wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

It would cease to be a game and just be an interactive story.  Combat is a crucial part of gameplay. Go, seriously, talk the Reapers to death.

The sims say Hi.
Wait, they have combat now. ARGH! And no story.

But seriously, not all games have combat. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy had a game which was a command prompt in which you told Arthur Dent what to do (was really fun getting repeatedly killed by them dang bulldozers.)
Not sure if it can still be found anywhere. Then again, if you know the story there's probably little challenge in the game.
Then there's Lemmings. (did that have a story?)

Also how many point and click games were made through the 90's? How many adventure games in various forms have been made that don't have combat - things like Myst as well.

They're still games - don't get me wrong, I like action, combat etc - but I take issue with people saying without it they are not games.

You have obviously misunderstood what I said. What would be the aim in a game that has millions of people dying and you're a Commander who's not even going to fight them?

EDIT: What would be your aim?

Didn't misunderstood what you said, just following on from the previous quote - that games don't need combat pieces to be classed as games.

As for my aim, I'm not saying don't have displays of combat - I'm just saying they don't need to be in the form of a character staring down the barrel of a gun pointing cross hairs at a target.

If they were handled in other manner, such as a major decision making process - imagine something like an RPG where you tell squad members to do something, and set up how your combat pans out as opposed to involving yourself directly.

I'm also not saying - ooh, never have FPS, TPS, controlled combat, I'm just saying I don't think its something that is critical to making something a game.

[Sierra 264]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

You have obviously misunderstood what I said. What would be the aim in a game that has millions of people dying and you're a Commander who's not even going to fight them?

Even with all the fighting that happens in the Mass Effect games I seriously doubt Shepard put much of a dent in the Reaper Population.  Fighting with ships would be cool though, I think they should have let you make decisions during the ship battles about what tactics you want to use.

So...a Mass Effect RTS? That sounds decent.

[Bazedragon]

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Bazedragon wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

It would cease to be a game and just be an interactive story.  Combat is a crucial part of gameplay. Go, seriously, talk the Reapers to death.

The sims say Hi.
Wait, they have combat now. ARGH! And no story.

But seriously, not all games have combat. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy had a game which was a command prompt in which you told Arthur Dent what to do (was really fun getting repeatedly killed by them dang bulldozers.)
Not sure if it can still be found anywhere. Then again, if you know the story there's probably little challenge in the game.
Then there's Lemmings. (did that have a story?)

Also how many point and click games were made through the 90's? How many adventure games in various forms have been made that don't have combat - things like Myst as well.

They're still games - don't get me wrong, I like action, combat etc - but I take issue with people saying without it they are not games.

You have obviously misunderstood what I said. What would be the aim in a game that has millions of people dying and you're a Commander who's not even going to fight them?

EDIT: What would be your aim?

As someone who (at least in real life, and I try to be in most games - paragon, light side, whatever you want to call it) tries my best to avoid any kind of conflict, instead reaching a peaceful compromise, I'd have turned to Anderson and Udina at the end of ME1 and said "GTFO - I'm the councillor". Had the Asari councillor do that mind-melding thing and shown her the vision from the beacons, had all known prophean artifacts (and those of any other species we knew) examined more closely.
Tried to form an alliance with the Batarian Hegemony in ME:Arrival - rather than going in guns blazing, and told Hackett where to go for his little black project - got the co-ordinates for this asteroid base.

Honestly, I don't see how ME1 could have really gone any differently (broadly speaking) to how it did, I avoided killing when I could, and all that lovely stuff.

Ultimately - I'd have tried to unite the Galaxy sooner than 3/4 of the way through the last game when everyone's already crippled. Knowing that there's no way to avoid all-out war with the reapers, why shouldn't Shepard have had the option of putting him/herself near the top to try make these kinds of decisions?

[Skyhawk02]

Icinix wrote...

lol - look for sure.

But where do you draw the lines with it being a game? Should you remove save games and force people to play it in one sitting? Should you elimate romances and fun side variations because they're not direct conflict with the Reapers?

How much of the game do you remove so that there can be an imaginary time line - do you put a timer on the top of the screen and make everything happen at certain events?

I can only speak for myself - but a game that has 30 hours of non-stop war in your face does not sound like fun to me. Not being able to explore the game world in my own time is a huge put off of the game - and those things are certainly there for people who want those things. If you don't like them because the Reapers well win, they're totally optional and you don't have to touch them.

Wow, a lot of great points in this post!  This is only loosely related, but what you said about savegames got me thinking about how the ability to save and then reload trivializes some of the decisions you make in the game, since you can instantly go back and make a different choice.  My idea to fix this is to use a save and exit feature instead of traditional saving, so that you can't go back and change your mind about decisions you make, what's done is done.  This would make decisions feel a lot more meaningful to me although it would probably upset a lot of people at the same time.

[Sierra 264]

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Bazedragon wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

It would cease to be a game and just be an interactive story.  Combat is a crucial part of gameplay. Go, seriously, talk the Reapers to death.

The sims say Hi.
Wait, they have combat now. ARGH! And no story.

But seriously, not all games have combat. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy had a game which was a command prompt in which you told Arthur Dent what to do (was really fun getting repeatedly killed by them dang bulldozers.)
Not sure if it can still be found anywhere. Then again, if you know the story there's probably little challenge in the game.
Then there's Lemmings. (did that have a story?)

Also how many point and click games were made through the 90's? How many adventure games in various forms have been made that don't have combat - things like Myst as well.

They're still games - don't get me wrong, I like action, combat etc - but I take issue with people saying without it they are not games.

You have obviously misunderstood what I said. What would be the aim in a game that has millions of people dying and you're a Commander who's not even going to fight them?

EDIT: What would be your aim?

Didn't misunderstood what you said, just following on from the previous quote - that games don't need combat pieces to be classed as games.

As for my aim, I'm not saying don't have displays of combat - I'm just saying they don't need to be in the form of a character staring down the barrel of a gun pointing cross hairs at a target.

If they were handled in other manner, such as a major decision making process - imagine something like an RPG where you tell squad members to do something, and set up how your combat pans out as opposed to involving yourself directly.

I'm also not saying - ooh, never have FPS, TPS, controlled combat, I'm just saying I don't think its something that is critical to making something a game.

I didn't say all games need combat. I just said that combat is a crucial part of gameplay in Mass Effect.

[Skyhawk02]

Sierra 264 wrote...

So...a Mass Effect RTS? That sounds decent.

Not really what I meant, I just meant to use the conversation system to give general orders then watch how they play out, similar to the suicide mission.  The game I'm thinking of would be more like an adventure game.

Modifié par Skyhawk02, 20 mai 2012 - 09:39 .

[Bazedragon]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

So...a Mass Effect RTS? That sounds decent.

Not really what I meant, I just meant to use the conversation system to give general orders then watch how they play out, similar to the suicide mission.  The game I'm thinking of would be more like an adventure game.

Have shepard make the tactical decisions, knowing that other than what, what he/she can do it actually quite limited in terms to accomplishing the missions if the decision is wrong and the specialists die - especially if they could be important again later on (damned pity that they weren't.)

That to me is what the suicide mission was really about. You screw up, you screw up bad.

[Icinix]

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Bazedragon wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

It would cease to be a game and just be an interactive story.  Combat is a crucial part of gameplay. Go, seriously, talk the Reapers to death.

The sims say Hi.
Wait, they have combat now. ARGH! And no story.

But seriously, not all games have combat. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy had a game which was a command prompt in which you told Arthur Dent what to do (was really fun getting repeatedly killed by them dang bulldozers.)
Not sure if it can still be found anywhere. Then again, if you know the story there's probably little challenge in the game.
Then there's Lemmings. (did that have a story?)

Also how many point and click games were made through the 90's? How many adventure games in various forms have been made that don't have combat - things like Myst as well.

They're still games - don't get me wrong, I like action, combat etc - but I take issue with people saying without it they are not games.

You have obviously misunderstood what I said. What would be the aim in a game that has millions of people dying and you're a Commander who's not even going to fight them?

EDIT: What would be your aim?

Didn't misunderstood what you said, just following on from the previous quote - that games don't need combat pieces to be classed as games.

As for my aim, I'm not saying don't have displays of combat - I'm just saying they don't need to be in the form of a character staring down the barrel of a gun pointing cross hairs at a target.

If they were handled in other manner, such as a major decision making process - imagine something like an RPG where you tell squad members to do something, and set up how your combat pans out as opposed to involving yourself directly.

I'm also not saying - ooh, never have FPS, TPS, controlled combat, I'm just saying I don't think its something that is critical to making something a game.

I didn't say all games need combat. I just said that combat is a crucial part of gameplay in Mass Effect.

I was following on from the previous post - hadn't even read yours.

However - I said it wasn't crucial to my Mass Effect gaming - there was a game many years ago from Dynamix called Rise of the Dragon. It was an adventure story where a few things panned out differently based on some slightly different choices etc - there were combat parts of the game - side scrolling shooters to be exact.

They were integral parts of the game for many I'm sure - but there was also an option to skip them to get to the story and dialogue parts of the game. To this day and hundreds of playthroughs over the years, I don't think I've ever compled those combat sequences. I have no issue with this being an option in ANY game I play that has dialogue, explorarion and or choice.

[Sierra 264]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

So...a Mass Effect RTS? That sounds decent.

Not really what I meant, I just meant to use the conversation system to give general orders then watch how they play out, similar to the suicide mission.  The game I'm thinking of would be more like an adventure game.

I don't really see an adventerous side when all you're doing is commanding. It's defintley sounding more like an RTS with more conversational elements.

[Icinix]

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

lol - look for sure.

But where do you draw the lines with it being a game? Should you remove save games and force people to play it in one sitting? Should you elimate romances and fun side variations because they're not direct conflict with the Reapers?

How much of the game do you remove so that there can be an imaginary time line - do you put a timer on the top of the screen and make everything happen at certain events?

I can only speak for myself - but a game that has 30 hours of non-stop war in your face does not sound like fun to me. Not being able to explore the game world in my own time is a huge put off of the game - and those things are certainly there for people who want those things. If you don't like them because the Reapers well win, they're totally optional and you don't have to touch them.

Wow, a lot of great points in this post!  This is only loosely related, but what you said about savegames got me thinking about how the ability to save and then reload trivializes some of the decisions you make in the game, since you can instantly go back and make a different choice.  My idea to fix this is to use a save and exit feature instead of traditional saving, so that you can't go back and change your mind about decisions you make, what's done is done.  This would make decisions feel a lot more meaningful to me although it would probably upset a lot of people at the same time.

Yeah metagaming is a funny one - that goes onto the whole issue of saving gamers from themselves by playing the game in a wrong way.

Its a tricky one, DA2 tried that with a certain mothers death - but found that everyone kept going back and reloading their saves to save her. So in the end they just made it impossible to save her.

If the player can play the game in a wrong way - it opens all kinds of cans of worms.

E.g - People getting frustrated by the Mako because they COULD drive up a vertical cliff...but could doesn't always mean SHOULD.

[Sierra 264]

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Bazedragon wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

It would cease to be a game and just be an interactive story.  Combat is a crucial part of gameplay. Go, seriously, talk the Reapers to death.

The sims say Hi.
Wait, they have combat now. ARGH! And no story.

But seriously, not all games have combat. Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy had a game which was a command prompt in which you told Arthur Dent what to do (was really fun getting repeatedly killed by them dang bulldozers.)
Not sure if it can still be found anywhere. Then again, if you know the story there's probably little challenge in the game.
Then there's Lemmings. (did that have a story?)

Also how many point and click games were made through the 90's? How many adventure games in various forms have been made that don't have combat - things like Myst as well.

They're still games - don't get me wrong, I like action, combat etc - but I take issue with people saying without it they are not games.

You have obviously misunderstood what I said. What would be the aim in a game that has millions of people dying and you're a Commander who's not even going to fight them?

EDIT: What would be your aim?

Didn't misunderstood what you said, just following on from the previous quote - that games don't need combat pieces to be classed as games.

As for my aim, I'm not saying don't have displays of combat - I'm just saying they don't need to be in the form of a character staring down the barrel of a gun pointing cross hairs at a target.

If they were handled in other manner, such as a major decision making process - imagine something like an RPG where you tell squad members to do something, and set up how your combat pans out as opposed to involving yourself directly.

I'm also not saying - ooh, never have FPS, TPS, controlled combat, I'm just saying I don't think its something that is critical to making something a game.

I didn't say all games need combat. I just said that combat is a crucial part of gameplay in Mass Effect.

I was following on from the previous post - hadn't even read yours.

However - I said it wasn't crucial to my Mass Effect gaming - there was a game many years ago from Dynamix called Rise of the Dragon. It was an adventure story where a few things panned out differently based on some slightly different choices etc - there were combat parts of the game - side scrolling shooters to be exact.

They were integral parts of the game for many I'm sure - but there was also an option to skip them to get to the story and dialogue parts of the game. To this day and hundreds of playthroughs over the years, I don't think I've ever compled those combat sequences. I have no issue with this being an option in ANY game I play that has dialogue, explorarion and or choice.

Just because combat isn't your favourite part doesn't mean it isn't crucial. Being in there changing the tides of battle is very crucial and immersing.

[Icinix]

Sierra 264 wrote...
(SNIP)

Just because combat isn't your favourite part doesn't mean it isn't crucial. Being in there changing the tides of battle is very crucial and immersing.

...er....no. Its not for me and its not in my Mass Effect games. I play ME1 and ME2 games now with games so modded that its almost skipping the combat.

The combat for me is the LEAST immersive factor of all three games.

[BladyMZ]

Topic-wise> when I finished ME1 for the first time I have never ever said I liked the combat, it came out after Rainbow Six Vegas and Gears of War, there was nothing there to hold my interest... except the story, the characters, the dialogue, the TRUE role playing, with Normandy Speeches, intervies etc.

Imagine THIS:

LA. Noire - like game with Garrus working in C-Sec, investigating various crimes, Dr. Heart included. Some action, but more like "chase him down" than "gun him down". Would love to see that. Could also mix some side-track mission on Omega, with Garrus working for some gang leaders "if I ever leave C-Sec I'm going to help people on Omega".

[Sierra 264]

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...
(SNIP)

Just because combat isn't your favourite part doesn't mean it isn't crucial. Being in there changing the tides of battle is very crucial and immersing.

...er....no. Its not for me and its not in my Mass Effect games. I play ME1 and ME2 games now with games so modded that its almost skipping the combat.

The combat for me is the LEAST immersive factor of all three games.

I'm pretty sure saving planets is quite immersive. But hey, opinions are opinions.

[Sierra 264]

BladyMZ wrote...

Topic-wise> when I finished ME1 for the first time I have never ever said I liked the combat, it came out after Rainbow Six Vegas and Gears of War, there was nothing there to hold my interest... except the story, the characters, the dialogue, the TRUE role playing, with Normandy Speeches, intervies etc.

Imagine THIS:

LA. Noire - like game with Garrus working in C-Sec, investigating various crimes, Dr. Heart included. Some action, but more like "chase him down" than "gun him down". Would love to see that. Could also mix some side-track mission on Omega, with Garrus working for some gang leaders "if I ever leave C-Sec I'm going to help people on Omega".

Garrus didn't help too many people on Omega according to Aria, but still, this game sounds fun.

Modifié par Sierra 264, 20 mai 2012 - 09:56 .

[Icinix]

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...
(SNIP)

Just because combat isn't your favourite part doesn't mean it isn't crucial. Being in there changing the tides of battle is very crucial and immersing.

...er....no. Its not for me and its not in my Mass Effect games. I play ME1 and ME2 games now with games so modded that its almost skipping the combat.

The combat for me is the LEAST immersive factor of all three games.

I'm pretty sure saving planets is quite immersive. But hey, opinions are opinions.

I don't believe in any Mass Effect 3 game I've saved a planet by shooting bullets during combat. I do believe they were done through the dialgoue and choice parts of the game.

[Bazedragon]

Sierra 264 wrote...

Skyhawk02 wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

So...a Mass Effect RTS? That sounds decent.

Not really what I meant, I just meant to use the conversation system to give general orders then watch how they play out, similar to the suicide mission.  The game I'm thinking of would be more like an adventure game.

I don't really see an adventerous side when all you're doing is commanding. It's defintley sounding more like an RTS with more conversational elements.

Silly point here - Commander Shepard is/was/will be the commanding officer of a starship. His squad (who are his subordinates) are elite operatives. It ultimately falls to Shepard to make tactical decisions - exactly what happened on the suicide mission. And Haestrom.

Now, there is an important balance to be struck, in that at times, it would have made as much sense, to have a bit of convo, where Shepard ultimately barks and order at, say, Grunt to charge the enemy line while He, Garrus and Ashley provide cover fire - then a cinematic plays showing the action. No need for a combat part with a near-invulnerable Grunt and all you're doing is firing your sniper rifle.

Now, at some points, I think combat is needed (taking your 3-man squad through a Geth-infested science vessel, for instance). But one problem that modern games have, is that the combat is often overused.

Mass Effect 3 could probably have benefited from more scenes like the begninning sequence, or the Joker sequence in ME2.

[o Ventus]

Tigerman123 wrote...

ME has always had a threadbare and fairly nonsensical overarching story, which is why I'm completely nonplussed by those who obsess over the ending, it isn't something worth getting worked up over.

Also, the non combat and choose your own adventure stuff have been done far better by other series, in fact they're awful

You know, for someone who hates the series as much as yourself, you actually bother wasting time posting in their boards.

[Sierra 264]

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...
(SNIP)

Just because combat isn't your favourite part doesn't mean it isn't crucial. Being in there changing the tides of battle is very crucial and immersing.

...er....no. Its not for me and its not in my Mass Effect games. I play ME1 and ME2 games now with games so modded that its almost skipping the combat.

The combat for me is the LEAST immersive factor of all three games.

I'm pretty sure saving planets is quite immersive. But hey, opinions are opinions.

I don't believe in any Mass Effect 3 game I've saved a planet by shooting bullets during combat. I do believe they were done through the dialgoue and choice parts of the game.

So I guess defeating that Reaper on Rannoch meant...nothing? 

[Bazedragon]

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...
(SNIP)

Just because combat isn't your favourite part doesn't mean it isn't crucial. Being in there changing the tides of battle is very crucial and immersing.

...er....no. Its not for me and its not in my Mass Effect games. I play ME1 and ME2 games now with games so modded that its almost skipping the combat.

The combat for me is the LEAST immersive factor of all three games.

I'm pretty sure saving planets is quite immersive. But hey, opinions are opinions.

I don't believe in any Mass Effect 3 game I've saved a planet by shooting bullets during combat. I do believe they were done through the dialgoue and choice parts of the game.

So I guess defeating that Reaper on Rannoch meant...nothing? 

Rannoch, in the context of this discussion, is a grey area. (by th way - were are in the No ME3 Spoilers section).
Ultimately, you do decide the fate of the planet with a conversation sequence.

[Icinix]

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...
(SNIP)

Just because combat isn't your favourite part doesn't mean it isn't crucial. Being in there changing the tides of battle is very crucial and immersing.

...er....no. Its not for me and its not in my Mass Effect games. I play ME1 and ME2 games now with games so modded that its almost skipping the combat.

The combat for me is the LEAST immersive factor of all three games.

I'm pretty sure saving planets is quite immersive. But hey, opinions are opinions.

I don't believe in any Mass Effect 3 game I've saved a planet by shooting bullets during combat. I do believe they were done through the dialgoue and choice parts of the game.

So I guess defeating that Reaper on Rannoch meant...nothing? 

Personally? Could have been handled as a cutscene since I thought all the turret sequences were incredibly boring.

Can barely remember the combat, but remember the scenes and dialogue before and after the combat.

..but we're now debating MY enjoyment and MY immersion - when all I was ever saying is that the game DOESN'T need to have those direct combat sequences. I don't mind that they are there, but the game for me personally would have flowed just as well without them, and in some places better. Which is why I would have no issue with seeing an option to skip combat parts - I'm only going to mod ME3 once I'm done with it for future plays to make the combat easier than a hot knife cutting through cream.

Modifié par Icinix, 20 mai 2012 - 10:05 .

[JustKnown2bDan]

I wouldn't want that. The combat is too damn good, its challenging and just pure hectic when you have it on Insanity!

The best parts are the Conversations, characters and of course the story but without combat it probably wouldn't feel worthwhiled.

[Yuqi]

Geez, they gave us narrative mode already.
Want to go through the story without the annoying combat? Stat-up a vanguard and play narrative mode.

[Sierra 264]

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Sierra 264 wrote...
(SNIP)

Just because combat isn't your favourite part doesn't mean it isn't crucial. Being in there changing the tides of battle is very crucial and immersing.

...er....no. Its not for me and its not in my Mass Effect games. I play ME1 and ME2 games now with games so modded that its almost skipping the combat.

The combat for me is the LEAST immersive factor of all three games.

I'm pretty sure saving planets is quite immersive. But hey, opinions are opinions.

I don't believe in any Mass Effect 3 game I've saved a planet by shooting bullets during combat. I do believe they were done through the dialgoue and choice parts of the game.

So I guess defeating that Reaper on Rannoch meant...nothing? 

Personally? Could have been handled as a cutscene since I thought all the turret sequences were incredibly boring.

Can barely remember the combat, but remember the scenes and dialogue before and after the combat.

..but we're now debating MY enjoyment and MY immersion - when all I was ever saying is that the game DOESN'T need to have those direct combat sequences. I don't mind that they are there, but the game for me personally would have flowed just as well without them, and in some places better. Which is why I would have no issue with seeing an option to skip combat parts - I'm only going to mod ME3 once I'm done with it for future plays to make the combat easier than a hot knife cutting through cream.

If you really see no need or combat then why did you buy it? Why don't you just go on a bunch of interactive mass effect youtube videos?