176 réponses à ce sujet

[Sarah_SR2]

OP, ME3 already supports what your asking for. It's called narrative mode/difficulty and basically turns the combat sections into glorified interactive "cutscenes". I haven't tried it and never will as I love the combat side of it myself but, yes it can sort of be done. However totally removing the combat elements from games just isnt going to happen because I seriously doubt there are that many gamers who'd want a combat-less "video game"...

[Skyhawk02]

Dont Kaidan Me wrote...

They did. They "dropped the ball" (admittedly) with Thane's character development...he's not even in the codex. Dialog options result in the same consequence regardless of whether you are an angel or a badass. The entire game is a bottleneck. I don't have the patience right now to list everything again, but there are oceans of posts detailing the "half" that was cut out.

I noticed that Thane's story seemed a little lacking in the playthrough where I romanced him, maybe if they hadn't cut so much stuff out I wouldn't feel like they needed less combat.  The balance between the two just seems totally wrong, it seems like ME3 is a shooter first, story comes second.

[Skyhawk02]

Sarah_SR2 wrote...

OP, ME3 already supports what your asking for. It's called narrative mode/difficulty and basically turns the combat sections into glorified interactive "cutscenes". I haven't tried it and never will as I love the combat side of it myself but, yes it can sort of be done. However totally removing the combat elements from games just isnt going to happen because I seriously doubt there are that many gamers who'd want a combat-less "video game"...

Someone else already pointed out that the sims doesn't have combat and it is a highly successful series, so clearly there is demand for games without combat.  Amnesia, the horror game I frequently reference in this thread, sold over 400,000 copies and it didn't have any kind of advertising and came from a small studio.  I think with a name like Bioware attached to a low-combat game it could be pretty successful.

Another game that focused less on combat and more on other elements was la noire, it still had combat but that wasn't the focus of the gameplay, and it sold over 5 million.

[FaWa]

Recent Bioware games in terms of combat:

DAO: Some people thought it was too slow
DA2: Fans of DAO thought it was too fast, too unrealistic
ME1: Most dislike, a few enjoyed it. I prefer it over ME2+3s because it feels less like a shooter and more like an RPG. But thats just my preference, which is different then most.
ME2/3: A lot of people liked it more than ME1's.

Its all about what you actually advertise the game as,..

DAO= RTS-RPG?
DA2=Action RPG??
ME1=3PS Action RPG?
ME2/3= Shooter with RPG elements??

idk, and Im digressing from the original post. I play Mass Effect for the story. In ME2 I constantly found myself doing missions just to end them so I could talk to my squadies. DAO I appreciated the combat a lot more. DA2 is like ME2 but I didn't have any companion conversations to look forward to other than getting called to their house once an act so...

[Skyhawk02]

Eayn wrote...

For what it's worth, I can see where you're coming from.  Non combat based games can work: Planescape: Torment, and The Longest Journey, to name two;  But that's not what Mass Effect is.  It's an interactive Space Opera with takly and shooty elements.  Trying to remove one or the other would break what made the original games so good. 

Recently, I've been trying to find a game that engages me as much as ME did.  And I can't find one.  I recently purchased Bioshock, after hearing that it was story driven.  Indeed, there is a story there, but after about 24 hours of play-time, having to wade through one nonsensical battle after another, I realised I wasn't enjoying it.  Too much shooty, not enough story -- or more to the point, the shooty has become the story. 

But you'll notice I'm not saying that combat is bad.  ME without combat would have been an incredibly weak game, IMO.  In my ideal game, combat would be there to drive the story along.  Fighting Grunt's thresher maw is story-driven; Invading the Cerberos base is story driven; Holding off waves of mooks while you wait for the Normandy to arrive in
the first few minutes of the game is not; having to kill Kai Leng wasn't.  He could have died in a cut-scene for all the difference it would have made to the story (not that cutscene deaths are bad: Mordin, Legion, et. al.).

Hmmm, I seem to have gone off on a tangent.  In summary:  I don't agree about a ME with no combat, nor do I want easier combat; what I want are battles that actually mean something in the context of the game.

I definitely agree with what you are saying, games should only put it combat where it is necessary to the story, in Mass Effect's case this would mean that it would still have a fair amount of combat, but less than it has now.

[jakenou]

What would we do with all those glorious guns if there were no pew-pew-pew??!!

[Skyhawk02]

FaWa wrote...

idk, and Im digressing from the original post. I play Mass Effect for the story. In ME2 I constantly found myself doing missions just to end them so I could talk to my squadies. DAO I appreciated the combat a lot more. DA2 is like ME2 but I didn't have any companion conversations to look forward to other than getting called to their house once an act so...

I agree about ME2 feeling like I wanted to get through the combat just so I could talk to my squadmates.  I don't like the idea of playing through combat sections of video games and then my reward is a conversation/cutscene.  It means that half the time I'm playing a game I'm not really enjoying it.  

Plus its demeaning to the player, this is the same way I treat my dog, I have him do some tricks and then he gets a treat as a reward, gaming shouldn't be like this, gaming should rise above this.  Unfortunately this is actually how developer's are thinking when they make MMO's it's all about putting in a ton of filler content and then giving you a small reward at the end.

[Jake808]

I think instead of making a cookie-cutter experience with either "must do combat" or "no combat for everyone", adding a greater variety combat options would be perhaps more suitable. What the current game is lacking in terms of combat options is, to me, an option to "fast-forward" through those combat sessions.

I didn't enjoy the combat in ME2 and ME3, and would have appreciated an in-game cheat option to do one-hit-kills or similar, or to have an extremely easy difficulty option that would let me accomplish the same.

[Bazedragon]

Jake808 wrote...would have appreciated an in-game cheat option to do one-hit-kills...

Widow Sniper Rifle is your friend.

Or the javelin. Take your pick.

Except on banshees and the likes. They suck.

[Lord Phoebus]

If you want story without gameplay, read a book or watch a movie; a video game needs gameplay.

That's not to say you needed combat gameplay. I remember the old Sierra adventure games, some of them were pretty combat lite or free, but they were fun to play. Mass Effect could have used stealth gameplay sequences, where you have to sneak past enemies and hack terminals without alerting them. It would have made Sheppard feel more like a commando and less like the point man of a three man army. Or sequences where subvert enemy defenses to take out enemies. While the gameplay is less polished than MEs gameplay, games like Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex:HR certainly gave you more options for dealing with enemies apart from shooting them and Shepard is supposed to have skills like Thorton and Jensen.

Modifié par Lord Phoebus, 21 mai 2012 - 05:36 .

[friendlybatarian]

 If it wasn't for the story and decision-making, ME1 would have been one of the worst games in history. It's a fundamental component of the series. Luckily ME2 also made the combat very fun.

[GenericEnemy]

Tali-vas-normandy wrote...

GenericEnemy wrote...

I would buy a game where you simply go around and interact with people in the universe in a heartbeat.

wait is that not real life?

I can`t screw blue aliens in real life, so no.

[Jake808]

Bazedragon wrote...

Jake808 wrote...would have appreciated an in-game cheat option to do one-hit-kills...

Widow Sniper Rifle is your friend.

Or the javelin. Take your pick.

Except on banshees and the likes. They suck.

None of the current options are good enough for me, the combat still takes too long and feels too repetitive for me. That's why I made the suggestion about having an option to "fast-forward" the combat, so people who genuinely don't enjoy it can choose a play style that suits them better.

I know this can make a difference, because my own enjoyment of the game did grow exponentially once I'd modded the save file to raise my weapons to extremely high levels in ME3 (so I could basically 1-hit-kill anything), and after I'd modded the save in ME2 to have unlimited atomic bombs (so I could clear every room with a single shot).

Everyone enjoys the game in their own different ways, please consider including a "fast-forward" option for those who are not interested in the combat.

[Reptilian Rob]

No, just no.

I'm a gamer to play a video game, not a movie watcher to watch a movie.

[SalsaDMA]

Since when did 'gaming' become 'must be able to shoot/stab/swing/kick/punch at stuff' ?

Lots of good games that doesn't require such things, so maybe people should either stop pretending combat is the "be all-end all" of gaming, or broaden their perspective of games in existence a bit.

[Shajar]

ME1 and ME2 was mostly about conversations. ME3 mostly about combat to attract those unnamed players from unnamed game to ME3

[Andromidius]

Would be nice if it was a game option. If Action fans can cut out the RPG, why can't RPG fans cut out the Action?

[Bazedragon]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Since when did 'gaming' become 'must be able to shoot/stab/swing/kick/punch at stuff' ?

Lots of good games that doesn't require such things, so maybe people should either stop pretending combat is the "be all-end all" of gaming, or broaden their perspective of games in existence a bit.

Since Battlefield, Halo, Call of Duty and the likes.

That's effectively the benchmark people will compare "shooters" to.
A Dragon Age / KotOR style RPG will probably be compared to... well, Dragon Age or KotOR.
And anything similar to Elder Scrolls will be compared to Skyrim or Oblivion.

And of course... any MMO is compared to World of Warcraft.

And the main thing people compare? "How does the killing go?" Because mindless slaughter is aparrently exciting.

[OO629]

Sims Effect? You could play on narrative difficulty instead.

[Cainne Chapel]

Sure games dont HAVE to have combat in them. But very few (especially ones about space marines) have NO combat in them.

Unfortunately mass effect has ALWAYS been a shooting game from its first incarnation (not a great one mind you, but it HAS gotten better as the games progressed).

Personally I think its a bit silly to say you want NO combat out of an action-RPG... name me one RPG that doesn't have combat as its main gameplay features (outside of story and stat screens, etc).

There are very few to none. As far mindless slaughter being exciting... unfortunately combat is the main crux of 95% of games out there. Its just the way it is. Sure games like Heavy Rain, dont have combat in a sense just really QTEs... but show me how many games have NO type of violence or some kind of combative conflict resolution and I'll show you 995 that do.

[Cainne Chapel]

Bazedragon wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Since when did 'gaming' become 'must be able to shoot/stab/swing/kick/punch at stuff' ?

Lots of good games that doesn't require such things, so maybe people should either stop pretending combat is the "be all-end all" of gaming, or broaden their perspective of games in existence a bit.

Since Battlefield, Halo, Call of Duty and the likes.

That's effectively the benchmark people will compare "shooters" to.
A Dragon Age / KotOR style RPG will probably be compared to... well, Dragon Age or KotOR.
And anything similar to Elder Scrolls will be compared to Skyrim or Oblivion.

And of course... any MMO is compared to World of Warcraft.

And the main thing people compare? "How does the killing go?" Because mindless slaughter is aparrently exciting.

To be fair guys, games have almost ALWAYS been about combat to some degree.  Especially in the past where story was a backseat. Granted thats not ALWAYS true, but if you tell me that combat or some kind of conflict resolution hasn't been in gaming since it was invented...well I'd wonder what alternate universe you grew up in... because I want in.

Besides why is this even an argument on a MAss Effect forum? The game is centered on combat as its gameplay...a lways has been.  Thats like getting upset you have to play football in Madden and cant become the teams accountant or something.

[Bazedragon]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

--quotesnip--

To be fair guys, games have almost ALWAYS been about combat to some degree.  Especially in the past where story was a backseat. Granted thats not ALWAYS true, but if you tell me that combat or some kind of conflict resolution hasn't been in gaming since it was invented...well I'd wonder what alternate universe you grew up in... because I want in.

Besides why is this even an argument on a MAss Effect forum? The game is centered on combat as its gameplay...a lways has been.  Thats like getting upset you have to play football in Madden and cant become the teams accountant or something.

As far as I'm aware the Korean War hasn't been in any games. At least not in any important role.
Also, I live in the dragon age universe. Things are very shiney here.

I think the reason why this is on a mass effect forum is the whole advertisement of "a more cinematic experience" or whatever.
And yes, combat plays a central role in the game - nobody is disputing that. I've stated before on this thread that the combat is arguably approached incorrectly at times in the series - with no matter who you're fighting or where, they always seem to implement the tactic of "stand and shoot". Even on insanity. And in ME3 it's no better.
I'd have liked to have seen less, but more tactical, combat - as in the enemy ambush you, flanking maneuvours, biotic attacks that actually do something, and less "troopers" that go down in a single shot to the head from most weapons (Thanks, insanity difficulty on ME3 for not having SHIELDS on the cerberus troopers!)

[Cainne Chapel]

But Baze that can always be made into an argument that something COULD have been done differently or better this way, or etc.

If we keep thinking what we COULD have had, you never appreciate what you DO have. Sure combat could have been better, but as a TPS its essentially going to boil down to stand and shoot and use power. Its just the system thats implemented in ME since the first one.

As far as the biotic attacks I've never not seen them DO something. As far as it is now Shep has to be one of the most gifted Biotics in the world as he is the freakin energizer bunny out there.

[Bazedragon]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

But Baze that can always be made into an argument that something COULD have been done differently or better this way, or etc.

If we keep thinking what we COULD have had, you never appreciate what you DO have. Sure combat could have been better, but as a TPS its essentially going to boil down to stand and shoot and use power. Its just the system thats implemented in ME since the first one.

True. Though they did say that the combat in ME3 would be more tactical (which is all I want, ultimately). Pitty it wasn't. But.. That's neither here nor there, game still played well so I won't complain about that overmuch, but mention my disappointment at the minor things (and yeah, they are minor).

As far as the biotic attacks I've never not seen them DO something. As far as it is now Shep has to be one of the most gifted Biotics in the world as he is the freakin energizer bunny out there.

In the original, biotic powers like stasis worked on Shepard to the point where he/she would fall over and not be able to get up for a few seconds (play the Benezia fight, and Biotic Terrorists stuff - you'll see). Yes, the Benezia fight glitched a lot that you'd get stasised and stuck in the floor so have to load your last save, but that should have been something that was fixed for ME2 and 3, rather than removed.
Making powers projectiles and allowing stuff like push and pull to have the normal effect on Shepard (if shields are down, like with everything else) on insanity would have been fine by me (though I guess getting lifted up and shot in the face by Harby would be a bit annoying), because really i've hardly noticed much of a change between normal and insanity in terms of difficulty.

And yeah, considering biotics require a lot of energy which has to come from somewhere, Shep seems to have... stamina.

Tali is one lucky girl (in my shep's case).