The problem was, the place they shot had nothing to do with where the laser was pointing. They could headshot you out of their arse.
There's a reason people complained about buttlazors from the Praetorian in ME3, and there's a reason I complain about snipers in ME1. The red line is basically a "if you don't find cover within the next two seconds, I hope you quicksaved" message. Not to mention, there are times when I can't even see what's killing me. If that was what I wanted, I'd play Screencheat, not ME.
Nor is playing in an unbelievable setting. If the setting simply doesn't allow one-shots, that would be fine.Fun should be our goal, and getting one-shotted isn't very fun.
Nor is playing in an unbelievable setting. If the setting simply doesn't allow one-shots, that would be fine.
But the rules should be fair.
In a realm of space magic and floating squids, one-shots are a problem?
Asymmetric rules have been used in shooters for years as a necessity, and there's hardly a reason to change that. I would rather have some people's suspension of disbelief broken (let's be honest, one person's) than have a less fun shooter or loose my one-hit headshots with the Widow.
There's a reason people complained about buttlazors from the Praetorian in ME3, and there's a reason I complain about snipers in ME1. The red line is basically a "if you don't find cover within the next two seconds, I hope you quicksaved" message. Not to mention, there are times when I can't even see what's killing me. If that was what I wanted, I'd play Screencheat, not ME.
ME1 snipers were easy and I've no idea why people complain about them. They lacked BS immunity, so just shoot them in the face. Sabotage their rifle or use literally any overpowered biotic ragdoll power if you really can't kill them within 2 seconds.
Hell, if you were an immunity class you could simply facetank a virtually infinite number of their sniper rounds, stroll up slowly and elbow them to death.
An obvious tactical advantage my enemies never exploit?In a realm of space magic and floating squids, one-shots are a problem?
That something has been done for years is not evidence that it was necessary.Asymmetric rules have been used in shooters for years as a necessity, and there's hardly a reason to change that. I would rather have some people's suspension of disbelief broken (let's be honest, one person's) than have a less fun shooter or loose my one-hit headshots with the Widow.
An obvious tactical advantage my enemies never exploit?
Yes.
That something has been done for years is not evidence that it was necessary.
That said, I don't play these games for combat. I would happily sacrifice many aspects of combat in order to improve other aspects of the game.
Problem is that at least 75% of your time is in combat. You can't sacrifice too much.
That seems high, even for me (who plays combat at a snail's pace). Dialogue takes up a great portion of my playtime, plus I spend as much time exploring as I can (even in ME3 I check every nook and cranny to make sure there isn't alternate path I'm missing). Not to mention time spent reading codices and studying the mechanics and managing inventory.
75% combat is way too much combat.
Have a decent ending. Doesn't have to be great, but a good ending. I am not upset about the ME3 endings. But when I first played Mass Effect and beating that game, I was relieved, and happy. Beating ME2, I was like "whew, all that work paid off! We all lived!" Then ME3 was like ".......... Well, bummer!"
ME:A, please be a mixture of ME1 and 2!
How about not showing default weapons in every scene. I was always sick and tired in ME3 of seeing the Avenger and Predator guns when i was carrying a cool modded weapon. Also if i have incendiary ammo equipped and i shoot someone in a scene i want to watch them burn... Its called continuity guys, its essential for immersion and satisfaction...
Came up with a list of things that we shouldn't see in ANY game:
- Vignette effect, seriously, eff that thing, most useless "artistic enhancement" ever, actually reduces the field of view.
- Film grain, another useless addition
- Dirty screen/lens flares, unless we're playing a drone with a dirty camera following the main charcter around there's absolutely no need to simulate screen smudges (unless it serves gameplay purpose).
- Chromatic aberration, human eyes don't do chromatic aberration, get rid of that crap.
- Locked 60° horizontal FOV, makes lot of people nauseous, add a slider.
Came up with a list of things that we shouldn't see in ANY game:
- Vignette effect, seriously, eff that thing, most useless "artistic enhancement" ever, actually reduces the field of view.
- Film grain, another useless addition
- Dirty screen/lens flares, unless we're playing a drone with a dirty camera following the main charcter around there's absolutely no need to simulate screen smudges (unless it serves gameplay purpose).
- Chromatic aberration, human eyes don't do chromatic aberration, get rid of that crap.
- Locked 60° horizontal FOV, makes lot of people nauseous, add a slider.
Two whole seconds and you can't find cover?
There are some missions where cover is extremely limited. Many of the Geth missions did this, as did some of the base assault ones.
Nor is playing in an unbelievable setting. If the setting simply doesn't allow one-shots, that would be fine.
But the rules should be fair.
So then my enemies should only have 3-man groups, and they should be able to pause time, right? 'Cause that's fair, right?
Your character can't pause time either. You can, but you don't exist within the game world.There are some missions where cover is extremely limited. Many of the Geth missions did this, as did some of the base assault ones.
So then my enemies should only have 3-man groups, and they should be able to pause time, right? 'Cause that's fair, right?
There are some missions where cover is extremely limited. Many of the Geth missions did this, as did some of the base assault ones.
I actually liked that there was no convenient cover everywhere. It was more realistic than ME2's and ME3's "Oh look, waist high boxes everywhere, we're about to fight!".
ME1 gave you Immunity, Shield Boost and a plethora of ranged abilities to stop enemies. Sabotage their weapons, overload their shields, dampen their abilities, lift them, throw them, put them in stasis... or simply kill them first. Cover wasn't necessary most of the time, often it was enough to crouch and fire away.
I take out every enemy unit on foot. Thresher Maws, Armatures, Colossi, turrets of all kinds... doesn't matter. Most can be defeated by running in a circle around them, tactically using your abilities to keep them from doing damage or to prevent taking any yourself.
Cover. Hah.
I actually liked that there was no convenient cover everywhere. It was more realistic than ME2's and ME3's "Oh look, waist high boxes everywhere, we're about to fight!".
ME1 gave you Immunity, Shield Boost and a plethora of ranged abilities to stop enemies. Sabotage their weapons, overload their shields, dampen their abilities, lift them, throw them, put them in stasis... or simply kill them first. Cover wasn't necessary most of the time, often it was enough to crouch and fire away.
I take out every enemy unit on foot. Thresher Maws, Armatures, Colossi, turrets of all kinds... doesn't matter. Most can be defeated by running in a circle around them, tactically using your abilities to keep them from doing damage or to prevent taking any yourself.
Cover. Hah.
The fact that ME1 gave you a "It's impossible to kill me when I press it" button doesn't really make it sound like good design. Not that cover is substantially better - but it at least handles risk/reward since when you're not blocking you can get hurt and getting flanked is bad news bears.
Personally, I don't think I have used Immunity myself... ever. Never really needed it.
I like the cover mechanic but I dislike level design that places cover everywhere. It makes combat too easy and too one-dimensional.
There are some missions where cover is extremely limited. Many of the Geth missions did this, as did some of the base assault ones.
Speaking of cover not sure if it was a design thing, a bug or a problem on my own end but every ME game I had, had a problem with Shepard deciding that hiding behind cover was stupid and kept going out of it randomly. If that was a bug in the games I really hope its ones that don't a make a return to ME:A it was rather annoying. I suppose wouldn't call it a basic mistake since I'm very sure it was either an unfortunate bug or a problem on my own end.
In opinion, BioWare can't act like the kid that missed the game winning shot in Game 6. It's game 7, 2 seconds left, and BioWare has to take the shot. They can not fear missing. They need the confidence as if they are going to make it no matter what.
If they can go with that mindset, Mass Effect: Andromeda will be a success.
****** poor QA. Get your head out of your ass Bioware QA department.
Actually use those things in your heads and actually WORK for your money.
I want MEA to be damn well optimized for PC.
****** poor QA. Get your head out of your ass Bioware QA department.
Actually use those things in your heads and actually WORK for your money.
I want MEA to be damn well optimized for PC.
You actually think people in QA don't work hard? Really an awful post.
If you want to spew vitriol at least blame management that prioritized hitting a deadline over bug fixing.
There are some missions where cover is extremely limited. Many of the Geth missions did this, as did some of the base assault ones.
Retour en haut
