583 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

I did not know that.

I really like how the PC version worked. If it had worked the way you describe the console version, I would have hated it.

This is from Fast Jimmy's 2008 memory, so grain of salt is suggested to be ingested. But it either worked with a wobbly mechanic (or a steady hand at higher skill levels) or it worked where the actual shot went a pre-determined distance off from where you aimed it.

Example - you have low skills in sniper rifle, so if you aim the reticule perfectly for a headshot, you miss by four feet to the left. If you take that same shot ten times, you'll always hit four feet to the left. If you move the reticule four feet to the right of your target, you headshot them every time.

I remember one of these two things being true (I've played different games over my life that do one of these two things), simply because that was a personal challenge attempt on one ME1 playthrough, to snipe every enemy I could without ever putting a point in sniper rifle.

[Sylvius the Mad]

For me, the stat based aiming didn't help much as you couldn't make a non sniper rifle very accurate even with high accuracy rating. The targeting circle only got so small and at some point accuracy rating stopped meaning much and I just had to accept that the game was going to arbitrarily decide I missed x% of my shots.

With the PC implementation, your shot would always hit somewhere inside the targeting reticule. So if I was missing too much, I was too far away.

An early 19th century pistol had an effective range of about 15 feet. Sure, it would throw the ball farther than that, but there was really no way to control where it went.

I think shooter games have given players an unreasonable expectation of firearm accuracy, and I applaud ME for trying to fix that.

As for the sniper rifle being too accurate, that was only true if you used the scope, which was incompatible with the pause-to-aim mechanic.

[pdusen]

ME was a pretty good game. I liked it. It had potential. ME2 threw away all of that potential and made something unrelentingly awful.

 

I do wish you would stop referring to things that don't fit your personal preferences as "awful".

 

If I were to do that, I'd be calling everything in ME1 except for the story "awful." Instead, the worst that I can say about any of it is "unrefined."

[AlanC9]

With the PC implementation, your shot would always hit somewhere inside the targeting reticule. So if I was missing too much, I was too far away.

Or moving too fast, or using too much rapid fire, etc. These factors don't need to be modeled in a straight-up FPS, of course, because they're modeled by the player's own skill and reflexes.

I think a problem comes in when the player is not pausing, because you've got both inaccuracy factors in effect at once. You've got the player skill factors and the simulation factors both leading to misses. While the former is not very consequential in ME -- most enemies aren't very mobile and don't use cover effectively -- some players felt that they were missing shots they deserved to make.

Put another way, ME1's combat system works best when you don't think of it as an action game. Note that ME1 does not claim to be an action game on the box; I don't recall enough of the marketing to know how they were describing it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Or moving too fast, or using too much rapid fire, etc. These factors don't need to be modeled in a straight-up FPS, of course, because they're modeled by the player's own skill and reflexes.

I think a problem comes in when the player is not pausing, because you've got both inaccuracy factors in effect at once. You've got the player skill factors and the simulation factors both leading to misses. While the former is not very consequential in ME -- most enemies aren't very mobile and don't use cover effectively -- some players felt that they were missing shots they deserved to make.

Put another way, ME1's combat system works best when you don't think of it as an action game.

I'm at a loss as to why anyone ever did.

And that's why the move toward making it an action game in ME2 was so jarring. ME2's legacy ruined the franchise.

[Cyonan]

With the PC implementation, your shot would always hit somewhere inside the targeting reticule. So if I was missing too much, I was too far away.

An early 19th century pistol had an effective range of about 15 feet. Sure, it would throw the ball farther than that, but there was really no way to control where it went.

I think shooter games have given players an unreasonable expectation of firearm accuracy, and I applaud ME for trying to fix that.

As for the sniper rifle being too accurate, that was only true if you used the scope, which was incompatible with the pause-to-aim mechanic.

 

Well personally I don't care a whole lot about "firearm realism" when it comes to video games, especially when we're talking about futuristic space guns that work via mass effect fields which is essentially space magic.

 

Why wouldn't I use the sniper rifle with the scope if I'm playing in real time? I'm not complaining about the accuracy of the gun as much as I'm pointing out that there's a disconnect there because the 3 other weapons in the game are partially skill and partially stat based when played in real time.

 

I actually felt the accuracy was fine. It's a sniper rifle, it should be able to reliably hit things at fairly long distances.

 

Some bullet spread is fine, but the first Mass effect just handled it in what was a very clunky way in my opinion. Mass Effect 3 feels much better, they just need to revamp Marksman to not make virtually any gun pinpoint accurate.

 

The reason why people thought of it as action combat is because the combat can be played as a straight up third person shooter and feels like it was designed to be one with a bit of RPG thrown in. Just because you played it with the pause button doesn't mean there wasn't a lot who played it in real time.

 

To me that's kind of like saying "I played Dragon Age in action cam, I don't know why people thought it was a tactical game".

[AlanC9]

Well, I'll leave that question for someone like Cyonan to address. I don't have any strong feelings ARPGs in general, and the ME2 change didn't do anything to me one way or the other. Edit: I see he's here.

Thought experiment: what about a version of ME1's combat system that was toggleable? One setting is ME1 as released, the other is a version where all weapons have 100% accuracy except for recoil, but you can't change your aim while paused. Would the latter have worked for people?

[AlanC9]

To me that's kind of like saying "I played Dragon Age in action cam, I don't know why people thought it was a tactical game".

Of course, we hear that around here all the fracking time.

[Il Divo]

 

The reason why people thought of it as action combat is because the combat can be played as a straight up third person shooter and feels like it was designed to be one with a bit of RPG thrown in. Just because you played it with the pause button doesn't mean there wasn't a lot who played it in real time.

 

To me that's kind of like saying "I played Dragon Age in action cam, I don't know why people thought it was a tactical game".

 

Good way to put it. Not to mention, the game does function (if badly) using real time TPS mechanics. But I can't say the pause and shoot approach seems to work out much better as fun factor goes. 

[CronoDragoon]

Thought experiment: what about a version of ME1's combat system that was toggleable? One setting is ME1 as released, the other is a version where all weapons have 100% accuracy except for recoil, but you can't change your aim while paused. Would the latter have worked for people?

 

Yes, it would have worked much better for me. Of course, things were made even worse for me since I played ME2 first, then ME1. So ME1's stat-based missing was especially annoying.

 

As for your earlier analysis, I agree. Games should count misses based on either stats or hitboxes with nothing in between. Same problem with Alpha Protocol: I'm fine with building misses in, but then don't make me aim manually. This is why I liked VATS, of course.

 

Edit: Well, now that I think about it, ME2/3 and even games like Battlefield still have stats-based accuracy, usually based on the specific gun being used. I guess I don't know what the crucial difference with ME1 is, but perhaps it's simply the severity of the accuracy penalty.

[Cyonan]

Yes, it would have worked much better for me. Of course, things were made even worse for me since I played ME2 first, then ME1. So ME1's stat-based missing was especially annoying.

 

As for your earlier analysis, I agree. Games should count misses based on either stats or hitboxes with nothing in between. Same problem with Alpha Protocol: I'm fine with building misses in, but then don't make me aim manually. This is why I liked VATS, of course.

 

Edit: Well, now that I think about it, ME2/3 and even games like Battlefield still have stats-based accuracy, usually based on the specific gun being used. I guess I don't know what the crucial difference with ME1 is, but perhaps it's simply the severity of the accuracy penalty.

 

I think the severity of the accuracy penalty at the start of the game, plus the fact that there's a minimum targeting circle size played a huge role in it.

 

Thinking about it, I'm accepting of a gun like the Revenant because it comes with higher damage(in ME2 at least =P). It's a design that's built into the gun, and I have many options if I don't like how inaccurate the gun is. I can just switch to the Mattock if I want something pinpoint. In Mass Effect 3, I could even increase the accuracy of a gun with the scope or smart choke mod as well as a few abilities.

 

However in ME1 it feels like the non Sniper Rifle guns vary in accuracy starting at "lol, have fun" down to roughly Revenant level accuracy. There isn't an Assault Rifle or Pistol in the game that's highly accurate, even at the cost of dealing less damage.

 

I suppose it comes down to that Mass Effect 1 could have worked well in real time if guns weren't so horribly inaccurate at anything other than short range, and if there was more weapon variety so that accuracy vs damage actually meant something as stats.

 

Although personally I like the weapon restriction system of ME2. There's not much point in giving me an Assault Rifle if I wont be able to hit a Reaper from 10 feet away with it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well personally I don't care a whole lot about "firearm realism" when it comes to video games, especially when we're talking about futuristic space guns that work via mass effect fields which is essentially space magic.

If you want it not to be there, then you care about it.

Why wouldn't I use the sniper rifle with the scope if I'm playing in real time? I'm not complaining about the accuracy of the gun as much as I'm pointing out that there's a disconnect there because the 3 other weapons in the game are partially skill and partially stat based when played in real time.

There is a disconnect, and I agree it's a problem.

But it only exists because one weapon when used in a specific way behaves differently. To me, that suggests the problem is with that one detail, not the sum of literally everything except that one detail.

The reason why people thought of it as action combat is because the combat can be played as a straight up third person shooter and feels like it was designed to be one with a bit of RPG thrown in. Just because you played it with the pause button doesn't mean there wasn't a lot who played it in real time.

The converse is also true. The combat can be played without any real-time content, so then it arguably feels like a traditional RPG with a shooter interface tacked on.

It doesn't matter what the majority did. It matters what features were in the actual game, and the pause-to-aim feature was apparently so central to the series that it persisted throughout despite all of the other combat changes.

It also rendered the ammo system completely pointless, since it's not possible to miss in ME2 unless you want to. Since the weapons are all perfectly accurate, you'll only ever fail to hit your target if you do it on purpose.

To me that's kind of like saying "I played Dragon Age in action cam, I don't know why people thought it was a tactical game".

I often said the opposite with regard to DAI. People kept saying that there wasn't an auto-attack, but there was, and I always used it.

[Cyonan]

If you want it not to be there, then you care about it.

 

I care if the gunplay feels good or not, not if it's realistic or not. I don't like it in ME1 because it feels clunky.

 

 

The converse is also true. The combat can be played without any real-time content, so then it arguably feels like a traditional RPG with a shooter interface tacked on.

It doesn't matter what the majority did. It matters what features were in the actual game, and the pause-to-aim feature was apparently so central to the series that it persisted throughout despite all of the other combat changes.

It also rendered the ammo system completely pointless, since it's not possible to miss in ME2 unless you want to. Since the weapons are all perfectly accurate, you'll only ever fail to hit your target if you do it on purpose.

 

Both pause to aim and real time combat persisted throughout the series. Neither one of them should feel clunky to use.

 

The part about ME2 is exaggeration. If you miss it's because you lacked the skill to actually hit the target. If your crosshairs aren't over the target that's generally not "on purpose".

 

 

I often said the opposite with regard to DAI. People kept saying that there wasn't an auto-attack, but there was, and I always used it.

 

The point I was trying to get across is that you're acting like the only "real" way of playing the game is the one that you personally used =P

[Monica83]

Too long. Didn't read.

And that's the reason why we can't have from bioware briliant rpg like BG,Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment anymore... People dislike read.. so instead of reading we have no more RPG but Lite Rpg...For people that dislikes to read lines and lines of dialogues people that want instant gratification and easy things.

 

But who is wrong?... The OP that is a guy that loves rpg and expect to play a Rpg or the people that dislikes to read the ones they made this cinematic stripped of roleplay elements so called Rpg?....

 

I don't want to offend... But many here seems to forget bioware in past was top notch quality of RPG that is why people are complaining they felt betrayed and in fact they are betrayed by them. 

 

There was a time bioware was the pillar of computer rpg's now bioware make interactive story videogames witch is good for who likes those kind of game but not for people like the OP or me used to love RPG.

 

A suggestion for the OP bioware chosen a different path now... If you are looking of nice old school computer rpg you are not going to be happy here.

 

This raise the question: Why you complainer are here?

 

Because i still hope bioware returns to make masterpieces like in the past.

[Eelectrica]

And that's the reason why we can't have from bioware briliant rpg like BG,Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment anymore... People dislike read.. so instead of reading we have no more RPG but Lite Rpg...For people that dislikes to read lines and lines of dialogues people that want instant gratification and easy things.

 

But who is wrong?... The OP that is a guy that loves rpg and expect to play a Rpg or the people that dislikes to read the ones they made this cinematic stripped of roleplay elements so called Rpg?....

 

I don't want to offend... But many here seems to forget bioware in past was top notch quality of RPG that is why people are complaining they felt betrayed and in fact they are betrayed by them. 

 

There was a time bioware was the pillar of computer rpg's now bioware make interactive story videogames witch is good for who likes those kind of game but not for people like the OP or me used to love RPG.

 

A suggestion for the OP bioware chosen a different path now... If you are looking of nice old school computer rpg you are not going to be happy here.

 

This raise the question: Why you complainer are here?

 

Because i still hope bioware returns to make masterpieces like in the past.

Not sure Icewind Dale belongs on that list. Fun game for sure, but it really was light on story, or even RPG moments that could send the story off on another direction. It was pretty much Borderlands before BL was a thing, but done in the Infinity Engine.

 

No arguments about Torment though, absolute classic, but I don't believe BioWare had much to do with that apart from licensing the Infinity Engine. They would have been working on BG2 I'd suggest. Even BG didn't have a huge story either really, but I feel exploration was rewarded more with new characters which won't be found if the critical path only is followed.

 

Very much looking forward Torment:ToN though, so some game dev studios still cater for those of us that like a lot of dialogue

 

We've also got PoE, which isn't perfect, but it has a lot of elements I'm enjoying, a lot of dialogue options and ways to resolve things. Can't wait to see how some of the decisions I've made turn out. A large patch is due for release soon, so it'll be interesting to see how that changes a few things. Apparently mind blades is copping a nerf

[Monica83]

Indeed i love pillars.... This is a nice time i mean... seems to me old school rpg are doing a nice return after all

[Sylvius the Mad]

The part about ME2 is exaggeration. If you miss it's because you lacked the skill to actually hit the target. If your crosshairs aren't over the target that's generally not "on purpose".

If you choose to aim in real time, then you're choosing to miss.  The option exists not to miss.

[Cyonan]

Not sure Icewind Dale belongs on that list. Fun game for sure, but it really was light on story, or even RPG moments that could send the story off on another direction. It was pretty much Borderlands before BL was a thing, but done in the Infinity Engine.

 

No arguments about Torment though, absolute classic, but I don't believe BioWare had much to do with that apart from licensing the Infinity Engine. They would have been working on BG2 I'd suggest. Even BG didn't have a huge story either really, but I feel exploration was rewarded more with new characters which won't be found if the critical path only is followed.

 

Very much looking forward Torment:ToN though, so some game dev studios still cater for those of us that like a lot of dialogue

 

We've also got PoE, which isn't perfect, but it has a lot of elements I'm enjoying, a lot of dialogue options and ways to resolve things. Can't wait to see how some of the decisions I've made turn out. A large patch is due for release soon, so it'll be interesting to see how that changes a few things. Apparently mind blades is copping a nerf

 

Does PoE pick up in the RPing department then? So far I feel like there hasn't been a whole lot of chances for proper RPing. There has been plenty of dialogue options, but most of them just boil down to "Tell me more about <insert subject here>". It's an interesting world to be sure, but I don't consider those options to be proper RPing in a video game.

 

Although I will say that DA:I actually does have a lot of dialogue to it. The only things are that A. it downplays being able to roleplay as a psychopath who goes around stabbing people because it sounded like fun at the time and B. The time in between that dialogue can start to feel pretty grindy.

 

It's been 12 years since they started going more cinematic with Knights of the Old Republic, though. I don't think they're ever going back to Infinity Engine style games, especially not while EA has them. Games like PoE are likely too niche for EA to want to make a big AAA title out of it.

 

but the good news if you've still got games like PoE, Shadowrun, D:OS, and soon ToN. It's a great niche for kickstarter developers because it's got some of the most dedicated fans I have ever seen.

 

If you choose to aim in real time, then you're choosing to miss.  The option exists not to miss.

 

Not all weapons in the game are even pinpoint accurate.

 

I suppose if you avoided rapid fire weapons, paused in between every shot, and got close enough to the target to negate any random chance misses then sure you could never miss.

 

but then you could do that in ME1 too.

[Eelectrica]

Does PoE pick up in the RPing department then? So far I feel like there hasn't been a whole lot of chances for proper RPing. There has been plenty of dialogue options, but most of them just boil down to "Tell me more about <insert subject here>". It's an interesting world to be sure, but I don't consider those options to be proper RPing in a video game.

 

Although I will say that DA:I actually does have a lot of dialogue to it. The only things are that A. it downplays being able to roleplay as a psychopath who goes around stabbing people because it sounded like fun at the time and B. The time in between that dialogue can start to feel pretty grindy.

Once I hit Defiance Bay, I feel things picked up in the RPing dept. Some situations can be resolved by combat or non combat means, different ways of dealing with people, things like that. The skills the character has seem play more of a part in dialogue situations as the game progresses. etc.

 

It's not like D:OS where one can wipe out everyone in the game world I suppose, but I'm happy that their are a few different ways to resolve various quests.

Since I'm on my first playthrough I'm playing more of a good character and trying not to tread on too many toes, but I feel it would be possible to play a more evil, just get out of way type character as well.

[Rolhir]

1) This is also true in the selection of the 3 party members. (refering to outcomes being the same)

 

2) Blurring the character types into just Warrior, Mage and Rogue is crazy.
 

3) Warfare in this game is automatic. 

 

4) If that doesn’t work, reload and try again until you win. Easy and lazy!

 

5) What is the point of a team when three characters run around the fourth guy like headless chickens

 

6)  Why can mages blast the hell out of 8 marauding wolves but are unable to knock a shard from the top of a ruined wall that is less than 3 meters high?

 

7) Amazing land Orlais!  One part of its desert has perpetual daylight and the adjacent area has perpetual night.

 

8) My Inquisitor will suddenly highlight his hair, apply lip-gloss and either his dentures start falling out or he has decided to eat his teeth.

 

While I agree that the game has significant chunks are that do not involve an overarching story (anything outside main missions and companion quests), many "points" here are just complaints being flung at the game that could be flung at nearly every game.

 

1) Companions will affect the dialogues and therefore what happens; however, there is no gameplay difference. Same as Origins.

 

2) Literally exactly the same as Origins.

 

3) Actually, Origins was designed to make this happen if you wanted. Granted, this functionality was lost going to DAI, but it's still easier to play DAO on autopilot than DAI.

 

4) Every. Game. Ever. Well, ones that allow saving (i.e. Origins)

 

5) They're only running around like maniacs because you aren't controlling them. And if you want them to do stuff without direction, I'd like to refer you to point 3 where you didn't want things to be automatic.

 

6) It's supposed to be hard to get to. If all you had to do was go near it and use magic, then they would have made it hard to get close enough to use magic, taking you right back to square one. It's supposed to be hard to get to...

 

7) Many many games. Also exactly like Origins.

 

8) Show me any part of Origins that outdoes the graphics of Inquisition. Also, every game has graphical glitches, even Origins.

 

While I agree that Origins was much more focused on the roleplaying aspect than the combat (compared to DAI), many of your complaints can just as easily be directed at Origins which you apparently do regard as being a good RPG. I also agree that nearly all background NPCs are gone, there's no real good sidequests, and collecting crafting materials is quite annoying; HOWEVER, DAI is very much an RPG and much more similar to Origins than you seem to be ready to admit. If you're going to complain about Inquisition not being Origins, at least pick something that isn't the same as Origins.

[PhroXenGold]

Not sure Icewind Dale belongs on that list. Fun game for sure, but it really was light on story, or even RPG moments that could send the story off on another direction. It was pretty much Borderlands before BL was a thing, but done in the Infinity Engine.

 

I thought the actual story of IWD was pretty good. Not outstanding, but well above average. There was just no real way to interact with that story, or make any decisions that affected it. I'd actually go as far as to say IWD was in no way shape or form an RPG. It was a tactical combat game.

[pdusen]

And that's the reason why we can't have from bioware briliant rpg like BG,Icewind Dale and Planescape Torment anymore... People dislike read.. so instead of reading we have no more RPG but Lite Rpg...For people that dislikes to read lines and lines of dialogues people that want instant gratification and easy things.
 
I don't want to offend... But many here seems to forget bioware in past was top notch quality of RPG that is why people are complaining they felt betrayed and in fact they are betrayed by them. 

I know this is a waste of time, but...

Has it occurred to you that maybe Bioware doesn't make that kind of game anymore because they *don't really want to* make that kind of game again?

Would you actually force them to make a game they didn't want to make? Do you imagine the outcome of that would really be any good?

[Giantdeathrobot]

ME1's gunplay had several problems.

 

First, Shepard, space marine extraordinaire, not being able to hit the broad side of a barn with his future super gun until you were level 30ish was silly.

 

Second, Pistols for everyone was just boring. Unless you were playing soldier, you would use one and ignore al lthe other weapons cluttering your back. Snipers had too much scope sway until later levels and shotguns were only useful in close quarters as usual. 

 

Third, it's never fun to aim at a target and miss because of RNG. Shooters don't work that way, whenever it's realistic or not. Even more abstract shooters, such as Borderlands, tie accuracy to player skill and specific guns. If you aim at something, you hit it, your character controls damage output through gun quality, skills and landing critical hits, you don't miss because the game tells you to. And yes, ME1 had pretentions of being a shooter. Chance to hit is perfectly fine in games like XCOM where you only designate the target, or at worse in systems like VATS in Fallout NV, but if I manually shoot the gun, the bullet better go where I aim.

 

ME2's gameplay was better if too dumbed down, and ME3's was the best in the series by a wide margin. I would never have played ME3's multiplayer had the combat been akin to the first two game's.

[Lebanese Dude]

Dunno about other people but I'd use the sniper from far away, then the rifle as they were running towards me, then the shotgun when they got in melee. 

 

It was fun to blow people up T_T

[AlanC9]

ME1's gunplay had several problems.

First, Shepard, space marine extraordinaire, not being able to hit the broad side of a barn with his future super gun until you were level 30ish was silly.

Second, Pistols for everyone was just boring. Unless you were playing soldier, you would use one and ignore al lthe other weapons cluttering your back. Snipers had too much scope sway until later levels and shotguns were only useful in close quarters as usual.

Aren't these largely problems with the class design and zero-to-hero levelling? Though, yeah, pistols have too much DPS, and manual aiming does obscure the competence issue.

I wonder if pistols ended up overpowered because too many Shepards only used pistols; they had to be potent weapons so Shepard could always get more kills than the squadmates. The same thinking that led Bio to nerf the squadmates' damage. One of the regrettable things about Bio's house style; was KotOR their last game that didn't do this?