118 réponses à ce sujet

[Tokenusername]

Cyonan wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Dual wielding is objectivly stupid. You expend twice as much ammo at three times worse accruacy.

But you get twice as many style points.

and in the end, isn't that what really matters?

Gameplay should always be the priority of game design. If a feature exist for no other reason than to be cool, it doesn't need to be there.

[mybudgee]

Only a few Biotics (Not Krogan)

[Tokenusername]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Don't tell me you're one of those crazies that somehow missed the last three hundred years of history. I love melee, but guns>swords. Period.

The entirety of human history has been trying to find way to get further way from the enemy, to the ultimate goal eventually nuking from orbit.

[Tech Domain]

But the game won't sell if it doesn't have guns, said EA.


I see what you're getting at, and I like the way you think. But then you would have to balance enemies so they're fair to fight against with melee characters. Which could potentially mean removing the sync kill too.

Wait, why is that a bad thing?

Modifié par Tech Domain, 20 décembre 2013 - 11:01 .

[HSomCokeSniper]

Broadswords? For fun factor why not, but...

Considering that you have weapons that are "micro-scaled mass accelerators, using mass-reducing fields and magnetic force to propel miniature slugs to lethal speeds. Nearly every gun on the battlefield is laden with features, from targeting auto-assists to projectile shavers that can generate thousands of rounds of ammunition from a small, internal block of metal."

So it would make sense to wield guns.

[Tokenusername]

Tech Domain wrote...

But the game won't sell if it doesn't have guns, said EA.


I see what you're getting at, and I like the way you think. But then you would have to balance enemies so they're fair to fight against with melee characters. Which could potentially mean removing the sync kill too.

Wait, why is that a bad thing?

Didn't realise that every unit in the game has a sync kill.

[megabeast37215]

Tokenusername wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Dual wielding is objectivly stupid. You expend twice as much ammo at three times worse accruacy.

But you get twice as many style points.

and in the end, isn't that what really matters?

Gameplay should always be the priority of game design. If a feature exist for no other reason than to be cool, it doesn't need to be there.

You can be cool and efficient at the same time. Also... It makes sense to use a primary weapon and dual wield, let's say.. Eagles.

[Tokenusername]

megabeast37215 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Dual wielding is objectivly stupid. You expend twice as much ammo at three times worse accruacy.

But you get twice as many style points.

and in the end, isn't that what really matters?

Gameplay should always be the priority of game design. If a feature exist for no other reason than to be cool, it doesn't need to be there.

You can be cool and efficient at the same time. Also... It makes sense to use a primary weapon and dual wield, let's say.. Eagles.

Welcome to Halo 3, where any weapon that can be duel-weilded is heavily nerfed and terrible when used single, as to not be OP when using two at the same time.

[Moby]

prostheticlimbs wrote...

I'm being completely serious Moby. I know why they have jackets instead of armor. Think of the cool!

Wanna jacket my armour tonight?

[Tech Domain]

Tokenusername wrote...

Didn't realise that every unit in the game has a sync kill.

Let's not be sarcastic here.

You would have limit yourself to the number of targets you could safely engage, without being sync killed. You'd be pretty much fu­­cked if you're in a solo, your team mates are all melee based too or worse they're all dead.

Modifié par Tech Domain, 20 décembre 2013 - 11:12 .

[Tokenusername]

Tech Domain wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Didn't realise that every unit in the game has a sync kill.

Let's not be sarcastic here.

You would have limit yourself to the number of targets you could safely engage, without being sync killed. You'd be pretty much fu­­cked if you're in a solo, your team mates are all melee based too or worse they're all dead.

Fine, I can be serious.

Cooperative games are not designed around soloing.

[Creator Limbs]

MofuggerX wrote...

prostheticlimbs wrote...

I'm being completely serious Moby. I know why they have jackets instead of armor. Think of the cool!

Wanna jacket my armour tonight?

Sure. Probably. I might be going out.

[Moby]

Awrighty missy, just send me a message if you're down...

[HSomCokeSniper]

megabeast37215 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Dual wielding is objectivly stupid. You expend twice as much ammo at three times worse accruacy.

But you get twice as many style points.

and in the end, isn't that what really matters?

Gameplay should always be the priority of game design. If a feature exist for no other reason than to be cool, it doesn't need to be there.

You can be cool and efficient at the same time. Also... It makes sense to use a primary weapon and dual wield, let's say.. Eagles.

It never makes SENSE to dual wield, but as it's said: gameplay should be priority.

[Tech Domain]

Tokenusername wrote...

Fine, I can be serious.

Cooperative games are not designed around soloing.

True, and I agree. So that defeats one part of my argument, except for the fact that people still can and will solo despite this. But we'll just ignore that, right? Because co-op.

What about this though...

Tech Domain wrote...

your team mates are all melee based too or worse they're all dead.

[Strict31]

Tupexi wrote...



It never makes SENSE to dual wield, but as it's said: gameplay should be priority.

Also doesn't make sense to build a weapon whose primary value is staggering targets.

But like you say, gameplay is as gameplay does.

[megabeast37215]

Tokenusername wrote...

megabeast37215 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Dual wielding is objectivly stupid. You expend twice as much ammo at three times worse accruacy.

But you get twice as many style points.

and in the end, isn't that what really matters?

Gameplay should always be the priority of game design. If a feature exist for no other reason than to be cool, it doesn't need to be there.

You can be cool and efficient at the same time. Also... It makes sense to use a primary weapon and dual wield, let's say.. Eagles.

Welcome to Halo 3, where any weapon that can be duel-weilded is heavily nerfed and terrible when used single, as to not be OP when using two at the same time.

This would be less of a factor because this is not a PvP game. 

Also... Your other point about getting farther and farther from the enemy... Hello Lightsabers... And space magic... At the same time. Ohh yeah... 

This isn't optimized space warfare.. it's a sci-fi video game.

[Tokenusername]

megabeast37215 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

megabeast37215 wrote...

You can be cool and efficient at the same time. Also... It makes sense to use a primary weapon and dual wield, let's say.. Eagles.

Welcome to Halo 3, where any weapon that can be duel-weilded is heavily nerfed and terrible when used single, as to not be OP when using two at the same time.

This would be less of a factor because this is not a PvP game.

Weapon balance doesn't matter because this isn't a PvP game?

[Moby]

Why are you trying to have a conversation with Token, dude? It's like trying to defeat the Rippers. You can't.

[ALTBOULI]

Dual wielding would add another dynamic to the game - it would be interesting to see a scenario where you could take an acolyte in one hand and something like a Hurricane in the other. The down side being that you can only hip-fire.

That hip fire mechanic is something Halo 2 did well so its not impossible to believe that Bioware could implement it in their next game

[megabeast37215]

Tupexi wrote...

megabeast37215 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Dual wielding is objectivly stupid. You expend twice as much ammo at three times worse accruacy.

But you get twice as many style points.

and in the end, isn't that what really matters?

Gameplay should always be the priority of game design. If a feature exist for no other reason than to be cool, it doesn't need to be there.

You can be cool and efficient at the same time. Also... It makes sense to use a primary weapon and dual wield, let's say.. Eagles.

It never makes SENSE to dual wield, but as it's said: gameplay should be priority.

It damn sure made sense to dual wield G-13s and Raficas in CoD... As primary weapons no less. Dual wielding isn't about accuracy, it's about extreme mobility while hipfiring and spraying. Good luck hitting a halo jumping, dropshotting dual wield SMG user with your 3 round burst or semi auto accuracy weapon in close quarters... I saying dual wielding isn't viable is the same as saying shotguns aren't viable. They fill the same niche.

[Cyonan]

Tokenusername wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Dual wielding is objectivly stupid. You expend twice as much ammo at three times worse accruacy.

But you get twice as many style points.

and in the end, isn't that what really matters?

Gameplay should always be the priority of game design. If a feature exist for no other reason than to be cool, it doesn't need to be there.

I wouldn't actually go for dual wielding in Mass Effect and was just joking around but still, gameplay can be the focus while still allowing for some of the more flavour features to be in the game.

The gameplay makes up the bulk of what you're doing, but the flavour features are the icing on the cake. Especially when it comes to games which are RPGs(which Mass Effect still partially is one).

[megabeast37215]

Tokenusername wrote...

megabeast37215 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

megabeast37215 wrote...

You can be cool and efficient at the same time. Also... It makes sense to use a primary weapon and dual wield, let's say.. Eagles.

Welcome to Halo 3, where any weapon that can be duel-weilded is heavily nerfed and terrible when used single, as to not be OP when using two at the same time.

This would be less of a factor because this is not a PvP game.

Weapon balance doesn't matter because this isn't a PvP game?

It matters but to a lesser degree.. the players can get away with more because the enemy doesn't complain on the forums.

Also.. Moby, you're right. Im walking into the theater to see the Hobbit now. Toodles scrubs.

[Tokenusername]

Tech Domain wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

Fine, I can be serious.

Cooperative games are not designed around soloing.

True, and I agree. So that defeats one part of my argument, except for the fact that people still can and will solo despite this. But we'll just ignore that, right? Because co-op.

What about this though...

Tech Domain wrote...

your team mates are all melee based too or worse they're all dead.

People that regularly solo are looking for a challenge. Most likely the harder it is to solo, the more people appreciate it.

If your entire team puts their stock in the same strategy, then you guys made a bad call. Variety should be in part be vital to success.