96 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

Why do you think the quality of combat would diminish because it becomes optional? Besides, that is basically the case on narrative difficulty.
 
Also, the game doesn't have to be designed for action mode. All that does is auto-picking a response. It's easy to just tag on. It would have been just as easy to tag onto ME1 and ME2. I don't see how you can make action mode responsible for the shortcomings in ME3's dialogue.

Does optional content get the same attention as mandatory content. if for a proportion of the player base by clicking a mouse all combat was skipped would the same development time be devoted to it.

it doesn't have to result in design changes but whether it does instigate changes is less clear to me. they choose an approach that favoured flowing sequences over one interrupted by constant player choices. Who knows maybe action mode just flowed out of that choice rather than the other way round.

[God]

ME2 was not balanced players were forced to be either all paragon/renegade throughout the entire game in order to resolve the confrontations between Miranda/Jack and Legion/Tali.

 

It was actually some bizarre percentage of what points you had taken up to that point. Seriously, complete a certain number of paragon actions and you could have a fully renegade character that could only get paragon dialogue options.

 

It was a flawed technical mechanic. Granted, I see your point and acknowledge it. ME2 wasn't as bad as you say, but the series in general did try to force a black and white morality (or Red and Blue in this case), which is incompatible with the ambiguous, grey vs. gray nature of the Mass Effect setting.

 

I think the games should take into account a bit of the Dragon Age system and instead of holding a more forced morality system such as paragon and renegade, they should implement a system of idealistic vs. practical. 

[Drone223]

It was actually some bizarre percentage of what points you had taken up to that point. Seriously, complete a certain number of paragon actions and you could have a fully renegade character that could only get paragon dialogue options.

 

It was a flawed technical mechanic. Granted, I see your point and acknowledge it. ME2 wasn't as bad as you say, but the series in general did try to force a black and white morality (or Red and Blue in this case), which is incompatible with the ambiguous, grey vs. gray nature of the Mass Effect setting.

 

I think the games should take into account a bit of the Dragon Age system and instead of holding a more forced morality system such as paragon and renegade, they should implement a system of idealistic vs. practical. 

I've never said I didn't like ME2 because I really enjoyed it. But I do agree it doesn't do a good job of portraying grey morality very well though there are a few exceptions e.g. STG.

[Vazgen]

Does optional content get the same attention as mandatory content. if for a proportion of the player base by clicking a mouse all combat was skipped would the same development time be devoted to it.

it doesn't have to result in design changes but whether it does instigate changes is less clear to me. they choose an approach that favoured flowing sequences over one interrupted by constant player choices. Who knows maybe action mode just flowed out of that choice rather than the other way round.

It all comes down to how did they implement Action mode. I think they made RPG mode first and then simply toggled off some options for Action and Story modes. It doesn't require that many resources to negatively impact game development. If, however, they specifically developed modes separately from each other (which I think is not the case) it can impact gameplay quality. 

[MrFob]

Yea, what Vazgen says. Don't get me wrong wright. I personally am also of the opinion that action mode is about as useful as a Hanar bathing suit. However, I remember that back in the day, on these boards, people wanted toggles for just about everything. So I find it hard to chastise BW for actually putting that one in the game.

Granted, it would have been much nicer to have weapon holstering or whatever but I can't very well blame them for providing a feature.

[God]

Yea, what Vazgen says. Don't get me wrong wright. I personally am also of the opinion that action mode is about as useful as a Hanar bathing suit. However, I remember that back in the day, on these boards, people wanted toggles for just about everything. So I find it hard to chastise BW for actually putting that one in the game.

Granted, it would have been much nicer to have weapon holstering or whatever but I can't very well blame them for providing a feature.

 

Weapon holstering...

[Vazgen]

Yea, what Vazgen says. Don't get me wrong wright. I personally am also of the opinion that action mode is about as useful as a Hanar bathing suit. However, I remember that back in the day, on these boards, people wanted toggles for just about everything. So I find it hard to chastise BW for actually putting that one in the game.

Granted, it would have been much nicer to have weapon holstering or whatever but I can't very well blame them for providing a feature.

I can see usefulness of Action mode for people who just want to enjoy the shooter aspects of the game without bothering with the story. I don't, however, understand the need for Story mode. Setting the difficulty to Narrative accomplishes the same thing.

[MrFob]

I can see usefulness of Action mode for people who just want to enjoy the shooter aspects of the game without bothering with the story.

I guess. That's why I wrote "I personally am [...] of the opinion".

[Vazgen]

That's why I wrote "I personally am [...] of the opinion".

I know, I'm not arguing against you Just throwing my two cents here.

IMO the more options we have, the better, especially such options that don't require much work to implement. I, for example, would've liked an option to toggle different HUD elements on and off. It should not require much work at all, some checkboxes simply need to be added to the Display section in Settings and the game would draw HUD elements based on boolean True/False values collected from those options. 

But that goes way off-topic

[God]

I can see usefulness of Action mode for people who just want to enjoy the shooter aspects of the game without bothering with the story. I don't, however, understand the need for Story mode. Setting the difficulty to Narrative accomplishes the same thing.

 

I have no idea why people would be playing Mass Effect for the gameplay alone.

[KaiserShep]

I guess for the same reason some people don't revisit the game for anything but multiplayer. A friend of mine played the campaign only once and has since then only played MP.

[CronoDragoon]

I have no idea why people would be playing Mass Effect for the gameplay alone.

Because ME3 has some of the best TPS gameplay out there.

[God]

Because ME3 has some of the best TPS gameplay out there.

 

I disagree entirely with that assessment.

[Linkenski]

I disagree entirely with that assessment.

Yup. Aside from how unique playing as a biotic is, the core gameplay with shooting is definitely competent but it's not so good that I'd want an entire game of just that. I already thought ME3 had way too long stretches of combat in linear levels. ME2 at least let you roam around a bit (even holstering out of combat) and potentially find some optional conversations along the way, like on Omega with the looters, Mordin's apprentice and things like that. ME3 was just painfully linear. Well-constructed level-designs over ME2 but still way too linear, at least in all the high-level story missions.

[pdusen]

I disagree entirely with that assessment.

 

That's probably why they're called opinions.

 

...even when they come from God.

[CronoDragoon]

so what? its an RPG whatever happened to story and characters?

its probably the COD crowd

 

I'd advise against telling people what they should or should not enjoy in a game. If someone doesn't care about the story but enjoys the combat then good for them.

 

As for the CoD crowd, generalizations are a bad idea. Plenty of intelligent people play CoD and/or Battlefield. And this forum is evidence that plenty of stupid people play Mass Effect.

[MrMrPendragon]

I don't mind as long as the chemistry between the characters is solid. Sometimes I just want the game to take me on an adventure. To show me why I should love this game. I don't want to have to decide every single detail of a conversation.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I actually didn't mind it that much outside of a few scenes. What did bug me was when you'd keep clicking on a character to hear whatever single-line dialogue was available at the time, and then when you'd use it up they'd say, "Hello, Shepard," as if they'd forgotten that they'd just been talking to you. Couldn't they come up with something else for them to say to end the conversation?

[Linkenski]

I hated the alternative. Garrus saying "not right now." was annoying.

 

I just want the conversations to be like in ME1 or ME2 where they have the same intro most of the time and then there's the "what's new?" option. Worked way, way better IMO.

[StealthGamer92]

so what? its an RPG whatever happened to story and characters?

its probably the COD crowd

 I used to play COD before I started seeing all the quick scopeing and sniper rifle hip firing idiots takeing over. Now COD is strictly a SP game for me, and that is only due to the stealth parts of MW3. Quick question to anyone who's played COD:AW, was there any stealth in it? I've been not sure wether to get it due to not knowing the answer to this question.

[Linkenski]

Just skip the new CoD games by all means. Their campaigns are almost purely scripted with a few sessions of shooting gallery. In AW a new gimmick is a grappling hook that can freely be used to climb things... but only in 1 mission in the game.

Just don't get them. They're cash-ins for single player and hardcore oriented for multiplayer, and if I'm not mistaken that's what you wanted to avoid.