Why do Bioware fans always like removing something rather than fixing it?
How about saying "no because ME AI was bad", we get bioware to make sure the AI isn't useless? Republic Commando had this feature and the squad AI was great, why can't ME do the same?
Hell, even HALO is adding this feature lol
I forgot it was in that game. tbh It's pretty sad that Republic Commando is like a decade old yet was pretty much a high watermark for squad AI in shooters.
I like all those games, and you being flippantly dismissive does nothing to address the actual point I made.
A better question: how does *not* being able to control squad members ala DA, BG, KotoR, and most other Bioware games, make ME a better game?
Why do Bioware fans always like removing something rather than fixing it?
How about saying "no because ME AI was bad", we get bioware to make sure the AI isn't useless? Republic Commando had this feature and the squad AI was great, why can't ME do the same?
Hell, even HALO is adding this feature lol
Well of course everyone wants Bioware to make better AIs 
, what they don't want is a game over because the AI companions go down during a fight
I really don't like that idea.
It tends to sort of indicate that squadmates getting shot up and 'knocked unconcious' is canonically happening.
There was a similar topic yesterday, so I'll say the same thing.
I have no interest in waiting around in case the AI might revive you. And I don't think Bioware should waste resources on trying to get the AI good enough to make a decent decision about this. The only way I think it would be acceptable is if you took control of your next squadmate and could play as him/her until your main character stood up.
What do you mean with FPS? ME is a TPS, Not a FPS.
Close enough for me ^^
It just doesn't make any sense that the protagonist is the only one who can revive companions. Mordin should have been able to revive Shepard if Mordin survived but Shepard didn't.This is gameplay decision not about fairness.
it's Game Over whenever any squadmember falls <- this would make gameplay nightmarish.
remaining squadmembers will keep fighting, even after the protagonist falls <- annoying and time-consuming if you can't control these squadmates.
How about if the rest of combat was conducted instantly? Since the protagonist is down and can't see anything, they could just resolve the rest of the encounter automatically without having to render the whole thing.There was a similar topic yesterday, so I'll say the same thing.
I have no interest in waiting around in case the AI might revive you. And I don't think Bioware should waste resources on trying to get the AI good enough to make a decent decision about this. The only way I think it would be acceptable is if you took control of your next squadmate and could play as him/her until your main character stood up.
It just doesn't make any sense that the protagonist is the only one who can revive companions. Mordin should have been able to revive Shepard if Mordin survived but Shepard didn't.
Regardless of whether we can control other squadmates, I don't want to see a mandatory reload event until TPK.
Seriously, how bad a soldier is Kaidan that he can't shoot one freaking husk to get us out of there?
Well it's gameplay vs lore there. I don't think game continuing without PC falling would work in gameplay sense unless you command squadmates as well.
How about if the rest of combat was conducted instantly? Since the protagonist is down and can't see anything, they could just resolve the rest of the encounter automatically without having to render the whole thing.
That would get abused. People would pick squad mates that are very hard to kill (Krogan), then rush into enemy, die and near instantly win the encounter without having done much themselves.
A segregation I do not accept.Well it's gameplay vs lore there.
Why do we care how other people play?That would get abused. People would pick squad mates that are very hard to kill (Krogan), then rush into enemy, die and near instantly win the encounter without having done much themselves.
What was your actual point, again? You ruled those didn't count as Bioware's "typical model" because they were different. Well, OK, but with the ME games different too, only 54% of Bio RPGs, by my count, now follow the "typical model." (Didn't count TOR since I have no idea how it works.)
Personally, I prefer not to control my DA party members; I only do it if I need an AoE placed where it won't blow up party members, and a couple of other things. (It's a pity NWN voice commands didn't make it to DA.) So I guess I'm the right person to ask, but I don't think I have much for you. I simply prefer games where I play my character, and only my character. When I take control of another character, I'm changing roles. I like this OK if I'm experiencing a scene my PC does not -- assuming I don't end up with knowledge my PC doesn't eventually have -- but if I'm experiencing what my PC is experiencing, I should experience it as my PC.
I guess this means you can file me with Sylvius as one of those RP radicals.
My point was that I don't remember anybody ever claiming that the minimalist approach taken by JE was a good thing. Or really that anybody had that much positive to say about combat in that game generally. So sure, you are right that you can't control your companions in JE, but even so that's hardly an endearment in a game that limited you to 1 companion and had a combat system that mostly consisted of performing the same 3 hit combo over and over.
NWN breaks the Bioware mold more thoroughly than any game except BG so it also seems like an outlier. It was balanced around the idea that companions were nice icing but that you character could solo pretty much anything. I also imagine allowing player control of companions was something that would have made scripting in the toolset considerably more challenging - which is something they wanted to avoid. Having a easily usable toolset was about 85% of the point of NWN. I also remember the amount of control you could exercise over companions (and the number you could have) increasing with new expansions and premium modules - explicitly because people didn't like the minimalist approach of the original campaign.
So my point was that not only were they different, but in this particular case, I don't remember the differences being particularly well liked and in the case of NWN, the devs explicitly moved away from this trend as much as the system they built would allow.
As for the rest of this post. I don't see what stops a RP purist from reloading whenever they die if they don't want to control their companions. This is currently what they have to do anyway with the game over screen. The only thing that would change for the purist is that reloads would no longer be mandatory. Heck, sometimes I reload when I die in games like DA just because I don't want to suck so hard at a particular fight and I want to give it another try to see if I can do better. However, sometimes if I've got the dragon to 5% of it's health after 20 minutes of fighting and everybody but Anders dies from a fireball, I don't want to start over from scratch either.
I'm pretty sure that decision was made specifically because the gameplay does not permit you to control your squad, and they realized that waiting around dead for the AI to potentially resolve the encounter on their own would be extremely frustrating for players. To contrast, a game like DA:I encourages you to play every squad member, so the Inquisitor could fall in every fight and it would be ok.
Mass Effect AI feels so rudimentary to me after playing Dragon's Dogma with full knowledge pawns. Damn, I have many pawns in that game and they are some impressive AI. I've not seen the likes of it in any game before or since. BW really needs to have a sitdown with the people at capcom and learn how to make better AI that doesn't look witless.
I really don't like that idea.
It tends to sort of indicate that squadmates getting shot up and 'knocked unconcious' is canonically happening.
What evidence do we have that it is not?
Retour en haut