340 réponses à ce sujet

[DarthReavus]

Terror_K wrote...

That aside, I personally would have
been happy with a system similar to that of shooting in KotOR, but then
I realise that would would put off those wanting a more real-time
action approach to the combat. KotOR's system did work, and I can't
recall any people who complained about it, but it is more of a
turn-based approach, and I understand how many might dislike it. I'm
not even sure it would truly work myself, but I'd prefer it to the
original ME system and the one that ME2 seems to have.

Beyond
that, I'd have gone for something akin to GTA: San Andreas or Fallout
3, where the guns simply get more accurate as you level up your skill,
and less shots divert off now and then. That system isn't entirely
foolproof either, but it's still better than no system at all. Maybe
even a system that's essentially like the ME2 one is now where the
weapon would sway a little more, Shepard shot a little slower and
reacted a little slower could have worked if these handicaps were
gradually reduced.

There's at least three methods. They're not
perfect, but they were thought up in just a few minutes. I'm sure with
development and tweaking BioWare could have some up with something
better in a few months.

Sorry but HELL FREAKIN' NO! to going back six years in terms of gameplay approach. The KotOR approach would be the absolute death of Mass Effect, taking away what makes it what it is and taking away it's broad appeal. It would then only appeal to diehard RPG fans who dislike anything that isn't copied and pasted from a rulebook.

On another note I'm disappointed that I go to the effort of writing a wall-o'-text post and it's been completely ignored in the debate so far

Modifié par DarthReavus, 18 janvier 2010 - 11:29 .

[Captain_Obvious_au]

Shady314 wrote...

I'm sorry but DITCH the WHOLE thing? Are you trolling? Wonderful use of hyperbole. They still have TPS shooter gameplay so obviously the whole thing was not ditched. If ME suddenly had DA:O combat then you could say ME2 had ditched the WHOLE thing. lmao

Yes, I'm trolling by suggesting that the combat system didn't need to be replaced. Spare me.

As for 'ditched' I mean the system they used in ME1 is no longer present, it was completely removed and a new system put in. Which funnily enough is actually what the term means in this context.

Shady314 wrote..

As for copying, how exactly is it a good thing to have the combat system in all games exactly the same?

ALL games EXACTLY the same? There's that lovely hyperbole again. I think you meant to say how is it a good thing to have games within the same genre share basic gameplay similarities? Which is after all, you know, how they end up the same genre.

No, it's how they all become generic. Just because two games have the same game genre doesn't mean they have to emulate each other in every aspect of the game. Difference isn't a bad thing, it leads to...oh what's the term...creativity.

Shady314 wrote...

Innovation is good. It may not work out 100% right the first time you try it, but that's what tweaking and improvement is for. Who's to say that had Bioware improved the old system instead of ditching it, that it wouldn't be better that the Gears system?

Again every word you speak makes no logical sense. They added location based damage, improved interactions with cover, I believe you can no longer use certain weapons based on your class (big deal you never used a weapon in ME1 without training anyways since you would just embarrass yourself), and replaced the cooldown mechanic with ammo...... How is this DITCHING anything? Cooldown was an unfun and stupid replacement of ammo in ME1 in the first place.  That they hoped would be innovative and fun. It turned out to suck. Lesson learned. Innovation CAN be good but sometimes it's not. Sometimes it's just a gimmick.

Try paying attention. Things like location-based damage, being able to upgrade your weapon so as to personalise it etc - these things are IMPROVEMENTS to the original system, and I think they're a great idea. Other things like ammo clips (oh sorry, heatsinks) and skill-based ammo are examples of ditching the ME1 system and are bad ideas. As for cooldown being unfun - that's your personal opinion. I thought it was a great mechanic

Shady314 wrote...
But please I would love to hear the brilliant ideas I'm sure you must have. Tell me how would you have liked Bioware to improve their combat system without "ditching" a single part of it?

That's my point though - I'm not suggesting the whole thing gets ported over into ME2. I'm simply saying that it should have been streamlined and improved rather than changing the whole thing, which I'll add even goes against the codex and universe Bioware developed for ME.

[sinosleep]

On top of everything else a stat based aiming systems would always have irked me from a lore perspective alone. When I was in the military I didn't have a combat MOS, but I could still hit a target with my m16 from 300 meters off. I was still qualified to do the same with a m249. I could place a grenade from my 203 grenade launcher attachment on a target 100 meters off no problem. This was as a guy who went through basic and then only did periodic requalifications on weapons since my job wasn't primarily shooting people.



But you mean to tell me a character that was either a war hero, a solve survivor of a horrible attack, or recklessly led their men to slaughter and survived can't hit a guy 50 meters away cause he doesn't have the stat points for it?

[DarthReavus]

sinosleep wrote...

On top of everything else a stat based aiming systems would always have irked me from a lore perspective alone. When I was in the military I didn't have a combat MOS, but I could still hit a target with my m16 from 300 meters off. I was still qualified to do the same with a m249. I could place a grenade from my 203 grenade launcher attachment on a target 100 meters off no problem. This was as a guy who went through basic and then only did periodic requalifications on weapons since my job wasn't primarily shooting people.

But you mean to tell me a character that was either a war hero, a solve survivor of a horrible attack, or recklessly led their men to slaughter and survived can't hit a guy 50 meters away cause he doesn't have the stat points for it?

And don't forget can miss a guy 2 metres away with a shotgun because he doesn't have the stat points for it.  In reality at that range the target would be shredded by said shotgun at that range.

[Murmillos]

DarthReavus wrote...

On another note I'm disappointed that I go to the effort of writing a wall-o'-text post and it's been completely ignored in the debate so far

Your posts are good, but they are a little on the heavy side.  Try to lighten to load, or limit the arguments but keeping a topic of focus or two.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

Terror_K wrote...

MarloMarlo wrote...

Really? Picking up heat sinks and new weapons that are better than what you have doesn't indicate the presence of a looting system?

A good looting system gives one a wide variety of objects to find and makes wanting to find them fun. When the looting system consists of only finding thermal clips which are a need and not a desire (kind of like giving you a bunch of presents and they're all socks and underwear) and only 19 guns in total to choose from, the best of which will simply be replicated for your convenience thus making them less special and unique, I'd hardly call ME2's looting system substantial, let alone decent.

Here's the thing: IT WASN'T FUN IN THE FIRST GAME. I got tired of playing Frogger over and over real fast, so I just started using omnigel. But then you have to turn items into gel one by one, with a 4 gel yield per item, and some locks require up to 25. It's so goddamn tedious. And the loot was crap. 10 tiers of the same armour that doesn't really do anything, doesn't have any unique skills, just the same 3 stats, shielding, damage, and biotic damage. Oh, and you have a mod slot for a few passive bonuses. Yay.

You whine about only 19 weapons? You only have 4 in the first game, and you have to carry them along, all of them, regardless of if you can use them or not. None of them were special or unique, either, the only one that looked different was the Geth Armoury assault rifle, all the other weapons were just reskins - again with the same 3 stupid stats. Oh and a mod slot. YAY. The only thing you can really do to customize was use different types of ammo.

You simply can't tell me you actually liked ME1's combat and loot system. It was horrible. Anything they try to remedy that in the sequel, I will welcome with open arms.

Modifié par Spaghetti_Ninja, 18 janvier 2010 - 11:34 .

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

Again, I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn. I'll fully admit that. But I also have to wonder where the line would be drawn for those who have little to no problems with the path BioWare has taken with ME2. Where would you guys draw the line and admit that the game has become a shooter more than an RPG? What would have to go to make you as angry and/or dubious as some of us are?

I think the real question is, would it really matter? Assuming they kept the same intriguing plot, good pacing, deep characters, and fairly sweet dialogue, as well as the same in-depth character progression we're getting...I'm pretty convinced I'd be happy. As it stands, people seem to merely be complaining about it becoming a "twitch-shooter", when in essence, BW merely improved upon what simply didn't work in the first.

Let's face it, you said it yourself. You ignored ME1s combat. Surely this says something about how effective it was in terms of gameplay? 0_o

[Murmillos]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...
 which I'll add even goes against the codex and universe Bioware developed for ME.

Whichs parts?

[Terror_K]

I suppose if BioWare released an expansion for Dragon Age where you played the part of an elite Grey Warden but started at Level 1 you'd complain when you weren't doing much damage and missing a lot and expect it to be turned into a hack'n'slasher then, huh?

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 janvier 2010 - 11:36 .

[DarthReavus]

Murmillos wrote...

DarthReavus wrote...

On another note I'm disappointed that I go to the effort of writing a wall-o'-text post and it's been completely ignored in the debate so far

Your posts are good, but they are a little on the heavy side.  Try to lighten to load, or limit the arguments but keeping a topic of focus or two.

I'll admit they are a little heavy, and when I wrote the wall-o'-text I only intended it to be a short single paragraph post but alas, my ranting side got the better of me.  I think we can safely say I strongly disagree with all the people that think the shooter combat of ME should be entirely stat based.  I think the system in ME2 is just right, using your own eye for aiming and stats for biotic and tech powers rather than stats for everything which doesn't entirely make sense.

[sinosleep]

Terror_K wrote...

I suppose if BioWare released an expansion for Dragon Age where you played the part of an elite Grey Warden but started at Level 1 you'd complain when you weren't doing much damage and hitting a lot and expect it to be turned into a hack'n'slasher then, huh?

I would hope they'd at least throw in a generic reason why you needed to allocate them in the first place. Most rpgs you don't start off as an already established ubre good bad ass. You start off as some chump, and if not you bumped your head and have amnesia, or in Shep's case in ME 2 you got blown up and brought back to life. Give me SOMETHING to explain it away.

That wasn't the case in ME 1 though. You weren't brain damaged like in KOTOR. You were a bad ass marine who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. It made no sense.

[Murmillos]

DarthReavus wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

On top of everything else a stat based aiming systems would always have irked me from a lore perspective alone. When I was in the military I didn't have a combat MOS, but I could still hit a target with my m16 from 300 meters off. I was still qualified to do the same with a m249. I could place a grenade from my 203 grenade launcher attachment on a target 100 meters off no problem. This was as a guy who went through basic and then only did periodic requalifications on weapons since my job wasn't primarily shooting people.

But you mean to tell me a character that was either a war hero, a solve survivor of a horrible attack, or recklessly led their men to slaughter and survived can't hit a guy 50 meters away cause he doesn't have the stat points for it?

And don't forget can miss a guy 2 metres away with a shotgun because he doesn't have the stat points for it.  In reality at that range the target would be shredded by said shotgun at that range.

Agree'd stat points for your biotics and techs make sense, as people can improve when dealing with extreme measures and circumstances.  Holding a weapon on the other hand for a seasoned and decortaed solider doesn't make sense.  Stat based aiming for N7 Commander Shepard NEVER made sense. 

[Terror_K]

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Again, I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn. I'll fully admit that. But I also have to wonder where the line would be drawn for those who have little to no problems with the path BioWare has taken with ME2. Where would you guys draw the line and admit that the game has become a shooter more than an RPG? What would have to go to make you as angry and/or dubious as some of us are?

I think the real question is, would it really matter? Assuming they kept the same intriguing plot, good pacing, deep characters, and fairly sweet dialogue, as well as the same in-depth character progression we're getting...I'm pretty convinced I'd be happy. As it stands, people seem to merely be complaining about it becoming a "twitch-shooter", when in essence, BW merely improved upon what simply didn't work in the first.

Let's face it, you said it yourself. You ignored ME1s combat. Surely this says something about how effective it was in terms of gameplay? 0_o

Yes, it would matter. Would you honestly be happy if Mass Effect 3 simply turned out to be no more complex and in depth than Gears of War but simply had a better story and narrative? Even if it had interactive cutscenes with the dialogue wheel, I'd give up on the series and return BioWare the middle finger that they would have clearly given me if they'd chosen that route.

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

I suppose if BioWare released an expansion for Dragon Age where you played the part of an elite Grey Warden but started at Level 1 you'd complain when you weren't doing much damage and missing a lot and expect it to be turned into a hack'n'slasher then, huh?

The real issue is whether or not it works in this style of game (DA). It does. For Mass Effect? Not so much.

Call it conditioning if you will. I think quite a few people are used to non turn-based shooters not forcing your shots into the heavens, just because you've only sunk 2 points into your Magnum Opus Laser-Cutter rather than 4.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

MarloMarlo wrote...

Really? Picking up heat sinks and new weapons that are better than what you have doesn't indicate the presence of a looting system?

A good looting system gives one a wide variety of objects to find and makes wanting to find them fun. When the looting system consists of only finding thermal clips which are a need and not a desire (kind of like giving you a bunch of presents and they're all socks and underwear) and only 19 guns in total to choose from, the best of which will simply be replicated for your convenience thus making them less special and unique, I'd hardly call ME2's looting system substantial, let alone decent.

as opposed to the wonderful mass effect 1 system of random loot drops which 99% time were utter crap.

[Terror_K]

sinosleep wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I suppose if BioWare released an expansion for Dragon Age where you played the part of an elite Grey Warden but started at Level 1 you'd complain when you weren't doing much damage and hitting a lot and expect it to be turned into a hack'n'slasher then, huh?

I would hope they'd at least throw in a generic reason why you needed to allocate them in the first place. Most rpgs you don't start off as an already established ubre good bad ass. You start off as some chump, and if not you bumped your head and have amnesia, or in Shep's case in ME 2 you got blown up and brought back to life. Give me SOMETHING to explain it away.

That wasn't the case in ME 1 though. You weren't brain damaged like in KOTOR. You were a bad ass marine who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. It made no sense.

So are you saying that the original ME1 system would be fine if you were a new recruit for the Alliance and is only flawed because you're an established elite soldier?

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

Darth_Shizz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Again, I'm not entirely sure where the line is drawn. I'll fully admit that. But I also have to wonder where the line would be drawn for those who have little to no problems with the path BioWare has taken with ME2. Where would you guys draw the line and admit that the game has become a shooter more than an RPG? What would have to go to make you as angry and/or dubious as some of us are?

I think the real question is, would it really matter? Assuming they kept the same intriguing plot, good pacing, deep characters, and fairly sweet dialogue, as well as the same in-depth character progression we're getting...I'm pretty convinced I'd be happy. As it stands, people seem to merely be complaining about it becoming a "twitch-shooter", when in essence, BW merely improved upon what simply didn't work in the first.

Let's face it, you said it yourself. You ignored ME1s combat. Surely this says something about how effective it was in terms of gameplay? 0_o

Yes, it would matter. Would you honestly be happy if Mass Effect 3 simply turned out to be no more complex and in depth than Gears of War but simply had a better story and narrative? Even if it had interactive cutscenes with the dialogue wheel, I'd give up on the series and return BioWare the middle finger that they would have clearly given me if they'd chosen that route.

Can you explain to me exactly what's more complex about Mass Effect, than Gears of War? 0_o

Only then can I answer your question.

[Jebel Krong]

DarthReavus wrote...

Just to stick my two pennies in here, I agree with the people who feel "twitch" (as RPG fanatics seem to call it) shooting aspects are far better than stat based shooting. Who here got really freakin' annoyed when they were stood two feet away from an enemy, were using a shotgun and MISSED! In the real world that simply isn't possible. If I'm playing an RPG with real time shooter combat then I'd be much happier if my shots went were I was actually aiming and not in a random circle around where I was aiming because "my stats weren't high enough". I know at the end of the game it pretty much is hit what you're aiming at, but in the early game it's so hard to hit anything it's unbelievable.

Shepard is supposed to be Special Forces, the elite of the Alliance military and at the start he can't hit something more than 10 metres away with ease? Where's the realism to that? I'm a big roleplay fan, and to be honest I believe that so-called "twitch" shooter combat makes the game more real and more immersive. It's your own skill at lining up a shot that's being tested, not a bunch of stats determining if you hit the broadside of a barn or not.

I also believe that somebody calling shooter combat a "twitch" is trying to be overly elitist and maybe compensate for the fact that it's not something they're good at. There is definitely a skill in shooter combat as is proven to me everytime I play on XBL with friends. Lining up and taking shots quickly is a skill, one that requires a quick eye and quick reflexes. These are things that take time and practice to learn and develop and in my opinion are far more satisfying than letting the proverbial dice decide whether you've hit or not. I take little satisfaction out of a kill on ME because I know for the most part it wasn't truly my aim that did it, it was the proverbial dice. When I play Gears of War 2 with a couple of friends on XBL I take great pleasure when I line up the perfect shot with my sniper rifle and literally blow and enemy's head apart. It's more satisfying.

EDIT: I'm actually not all that brilliant when it comes to shooters, but I have friends who are and seeing them play as I tag along and get the odd decent kill here and there is truly awesome to see.

So to sum up what was supposed to be a very brief post on my part, I think altering the shooter combat so it uses more TPS mechanics is a good move. I will actually be satisfied when I get a decent kill now rather than the nothingness that comes from the proverbial dice deciding. At the same time I will still enjoy the RPG elements of the game. Seeing as I'm going to be playing as an Adept, which might be a surprise given everything I've just been saying, I will enjoy the RPG mechanics of the biotic powers, I will enjoy the dialogue and the gripping story. What's more I will enjoy the game for what it is and was always meant to be: An Action RPG/TPS hybrid.

EDIT: This entire post is of course my own opinion and I claim to speak for absolutely nobody other than myself in this post.

this.

turn-based combat is just not sufficient/rewarding enough to be used in today's games. and anyone who uses the "i can't play games where i have to aim myself" is lying/elitist or just plain disabled. if you are the former - get over it and learn to; the latter i have some sympathy with, but you don't make games for minorities-only.

[DarthReavus]

Terror_K wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I suppose if BioWare released an expansion for Dragon Age where you played the part of an elite Grey Warden but started at Level 1 you'd complain when you weren't doing much damage and hitting a lot and expect it to be turned into a hack'n'slasher then, huh?

I would hope they'd at least throw in a generic reason why you needed to allocate them in the first place. Most rpgs you don't start off as an already established ubre good bad ass. You start off as some chump, and if not you bumped your head and have amnesia, or in Shep's case in ME 2 you got blown up and brought back to life. Give me SOMETHING to explain it away.

That wasn't the case in ME 1 though. You weren't brain damaged like in KOTOR. You were a bad ass marine who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. It made no sense.

So are you saying that the original ME1 system would be fine if you were a new recruit for the Alliance and is only flawed because you're an established elite soldier?

Given Shepard's 11 years of service, his rank of Lieutenant Commander and the fact he completed the elite N7 training program means that realistically in the ME1 system he should have probably started at around Level 30 in terms of weapon proficiency. So yes, if you were fresh from Boot Camp starting at Level 1 might work, but to me it just seemed out of place. I always feel more immersed in my NG+ playthroughs simply because from the start I feel like Shepard is an elite Special Forces operative and not some green kid fresh out of Boot.

Modifié par DarthReavus, 18 janvier 2010 - 11:48 .

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...



I suppose if BioWare released an expansion for Dragon Age where you played the part of an elite Grey Warden but started at Level 1 you'd complain when you weren't doing much damage and missing a lot and expect it to be turned into a hack'n'slasher then, huh?

I truly think you are rightfully ****ing with us at this point... as you are missing the basic concept of the problem here.



If you play as an "elite" Grey Warden, whom back story informs you that you have gone thru years of dedicated weapons training, and are responsible for leading an army and are personally responsible for slaughtering a million orcs by your sword/axe.. but the moment the player gets a hold of this "elite" warrior and he suddenly can't hit a dead horse for the life of him, despite standing on top of it...



THE GAME DOESN'T"T NEED TO TURN INTO A ****ING HACK AND SLASH, THE ****ING GUY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO AS ****ING ADVERTISED BY HIS ****ING BACK STORY!

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

as opposed to the wonderful mass effect 1 system of random loot drops which 99% time were utter crap.

Which, as I've said, that wasn't the problem of the system so much as the items.

And that seems to be the overall problem I have with many of the changes. Just like many of the fans. it's like BioWare has decided to destroy the vending machines because they were filled with apples instead of candy. Because that's the vending machine's fault.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

I suppose if BioWare released an expansion for Dragon Age where you played the part of an elite Grey Warden but started at Level 1 you'd complain when you weren't doing much damage and missing a lot and expect it to be turned into a hack'n'slasher then, huh?

good design does take into account realism in role-playing - if you are an "elite" character then it makes no sense not to have elite skills just to conform to some arcane convention - that's just plain retarded, and you know it.

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

So are you saying that the original ME1 system would be fine if you were a new recruit for the Alliance and is only flawed because you're an established elite soldier?

YES YES!.. O M G! YES.. this is what I have, and many others have been trying to tell you.

ME1 stat based aiming & leveling mechanics did not work with the given back story of N7 Commander Shepard.  Whom as far as we know.. wasn't coming out of a 20 year coma.

[sinosleep]

Terror_K wrote...

So are you saying that the original ME1 system would be fine if you were a new recruit for the Alliance and is only flawed because you're an established elite soldier?

On the whole no, I flat out don't think stat based accuracy and shooters mix at all. But it would have certainly dulled the blow.

Modifié par sinosleep, 18 janvier 2010 - 11:51 .

[Darth_Shizz]

Murmillos wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

So are you saying that the original ME1 system would be fine if you were a new recruit for the Alliance and is only flawed because you're an established elite soldier?

YES YES!.. O M G! YES.. this is what I have, and many others have been trying to tell you.

ME1 stat based aiming & leveling mechanics did not work with the given back story of N7 Commander Shepard.  Whom as far as we know.. wasn't coming out of a 20 year coma.

Woah now. That's not correct Murm. It wouldn't work regardless