153 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

I would prefer symmetrical mechanics where everyone is governed by the same rules.

 

Eh, rules shmules. The battles in these games are always designed so that the baddies usually greatly outnumber your paltry team of adventurers, so they always have to be badass enough to kill them all to make it to the end of the journey. It was like this even in Origins, where the Warden could become laughably powerful if you spec'd him/her right. Aside from that, the game's AI will always be outdone by a good player. Just look at people who manage to do platinum solo in multiplayer. 

 

It ain't like Dart, Shana and that guy with a spear facing down a trio of mermen in Legend of Dragoon or something. 

[(Disgusted noise.)]

I want space Hawke, but I want him to have a stronger motivation to continue the plot than real Hawke had, By Act 3 of DA2, I couldn't help but wonder why my Hawke wouldn't let Kirkwall just burn itself to the ground like the hell hole it was. And that's the problem with an everyman sort of protagonist. Shepard and the Warden weren't quite as bad since despite stumbling into something that made them special, no one was tripping over themselves to fawn over their specialness until they had actually proven themselves. The Inquisitor was far too venerated far too quickly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eh, rules shmules. The battles in these games are always designed so that the baddies usually greatly outnumber your paltry team of adventurers, so they always have to be badass enough to kill them all to make it to the end of the journey.

That's lousy design.

 

That almost all modern games do something badly is not a reason not to try to improve it.

[KaiserShep]

That's lousy design.

 

That almost all modern games do something badly is not a reason not to try to improve it.

 

Well, that's pretty much the way it is. You can't have the protagonist be followed by an entire platoon in every single mission, but you can't have every encounter involve just a small handful of boss-level combatants either. If you're taking out a minor faction, like, say, Eclipse mercenaries, there has to be a lot of them. There's just no getting around that. The most the devs could ever do is simply allow us to always take the entire cast of companions out with us, but we'll not likely see the ME2-sized group again. I'm not even sure how the devs would go about balancing that sort of thing out though, since managing a group that size would probably be a pain for a lot of reasons. 

 

If I want to play chess against a computer, I'll just fire up actual chess. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, that's pretty much the way it is. You can't have the protagonist be followed by an entire platoon in every single mission, but you can't have every encounter involve just a small handful of boss-level combatants either. If you're taking out a minor faction, like, say, Eclipse mercenaries, there has to be a lot of them. There's just no getting around that. The most the devs could ever do is simply allow us to always take the entire cast of companions out with us, but we'll not likely see the ME2-sized group again. I'm not even sure how the devs would go about balancing that sort of thing out though, since managing a group that size would probably be a pain for a lot of reasons. 

We could approach enemies at range, ambush them, snipe at them, call for orbital bombardment...

 

They can follow the same rules without employing the same tactics (especially if they're defending a location and we're not) or having access to the same resources.

 

But wildly asymmetrical mechanics made for a far less credible setting.  The game world doesn't make sense if the game's rules don't make sense.

[Fantastic Fantasy]

Popped my first post cherry!

 

 

I like characters who are underdogs, and earn their way to the top. No destiny or prophecies, I hate prophecies with a passion, and destinies are cheap and boring. Also I hope for no world, or galaxy saving stories (been there, done that).

 

I want the PC to eventually become an important figure in their field/universe, but not a destined saviour of humanity or things like that.

 

It also could be cool if one of your companions is that special hero and you see all that stuff happen to them..... Or sabotage them

[Blackout62]

Mr./Ms. Qualified For The Position!

 

I want a protagonist that isn't the unbelievably lucky underdog or the super special ubermensch with a side helping of Christ analogue. I want the person with past experience that objectively qualifies them to engage in what's expected to be thrown at them in this game. Nothing more, nothing less than the actual pedestrian quality of being completely suitable.

[RoboticWater]

That's lousy design.

 

That almost all modern games do something badly is not a reason not to try to improve it.

In traditional RPGs yes, but not necessarily in shooters.

 

Computers are can be super smart or super quick. Doing both simultaneously isn't an easy task especially when they have to think for ~10 enemies while rendering fancy physics and pretty graphics.

 

Because of turns and power cooldowns CRPGs can be handled like an exact science by calculating potential damage outputs and min/maxing stats. All the computer has to deal with is a moderately more complex chess board.

 

As it turns out, dealing with a fully mobile and highly active player is a much more difficult problem. Line of sight can change any millisecond, where you aim matters, and the player's reaction time is incredibly significant. Computers just aren't good enough yet to control worthy shooting adversaries. There's a reason bots in multiplayer games are so stupid.

 

It also doesn't help that shooters have a different feedback loop than RPGs. Generally, if you're not killing something every 30-40 seconds per engagement, then it doesn't feel very rewarding (that's a super rough estimate, but I think you get my point). 

 

Could developers make an equal ruleset for a shooter? Sure, but I don't think the result would be worth the effort put in when designers can make an equally (if not more) fun game by messing with the balance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In traditional RPGs yes, but not necessarily in shooters.

Computers are can be super smart or super quick. Doing both simultaneously isn't an easy task especially when they have to think for ~10 enemies while rendering fancy physics and pretty graphics.

Because of turns and power cooldowns CRPGs can be handled like an exact science by calculating potential damage outputs and min/maxing stats. All the computer has to deal with is a moderately more complex chess board.

That's how I like it. Given the option, I would use something like VATS or pause-to-aim with every shot, which is effectively what I did in ME2.

As it turns out, dealing with a fully mobile and highly active player is a much more difficult problem. Line of sight can change any millisecond, where you aim matters, and the player's reaction time is incredibly significant. Computers just aren't good enough yet to control worthy shooting adversaries. There's a reason bots in multiplayer games are so stupid.

I recall that Quake 3 addressed this problem by letting the bots see through walls.

It also doesn't help that shooters have a different feedback loop than RPGs. Generally, if you're not killing something every 30-40 seconds per engagement, then it doesn't feel very rewarding (that's a super rough estimate, but I think you get my point).

Personally, I find that fairly monotonous, but then, I don't really like shooters (and don't play ME like one).

The only pure shooter with gameplay I genuinely enjoyed was the original Delta Force, where I could be a sniper, spend most of my time sneaking around looking for sight lines, and often going minutes between firing shots.

This was also how I played ME1. I spent a lot of time sniping at Geth on those uncharted worlds.

[N7Jamaican]

I am sure the PC will be special and very different from Shepard.

[Sturm.B]

I've also thought about this a few times.

It'd be fun to be part of some crew or a member of some bandits.

Not always having to be the leader

[MissMayhem96]

I would like my Pathfinder to be experienced by training but be put through hell when she actually starts exploring Andromeda and getting her ass kicked.

[LoRD KYRaN]

That's how I like it. Given the option, I would use something like VATS or pause-to-aim with every shot, which is effectively what I did in ME2.
I recall that Quake 3 addressed this problem by letting the bots see through walls.
Personally, I find that fairly monotonous, but then, I don't really like shooters (and don't play ME like one).

The only pure shooter with gameplay I genuinely enjoyed was the original Delta Force, where I could be a sniper, spend most of my time sneaking around looking for sight lines, and often going minutes between firing shots.

This was also how I played ME1. I spent a lot of time sniping at Geth on those uncharted worlds.

 

I think this is just preference and play style. I don't know bout others but I generally suck at shooters. Do much better in SRPG's. That being said, I think ME works best following shooter rules. I enjoy the combat speed and the multitude's of opponents. It's fast paced and hardcore. I can kill a dozen and there's another dozen round the corner waiting to kill me. It's not easy but it sure is fun. Combat suits the game.

 

When I want to have my fairer rules and strategic play, I switch on XCOM:LW.

[Lonely Heart Poet]

Commander Shepard was a very special -almost Jesus like - character and did we all love her/him because of that. I usually still choosed spacer/ruthless background for her/him because I didn't want her/ to be so famous without my own personal experience in it.
So earning really is the point. She/he can be special to me in the end, but I would LOVE some strong and influental characters around me who I can ****** of with my messed missions!
Sry my english. No native, no laptop, here with my old SII.

[Boomer-Australia]

What I want but I don't expect is to be a good soldier not with an exemplary history but good conduct, participation in several battles, competent leader however I want to earn my leadership. Obviously we'll start off as the captain of a ship but I want to earn recognition I want to be another captain in a group of captains but I want to prove that I've earned my commision. However more likely we'll have a history of extreme feats and heroics.

[Display Name Owner]

I'd like them to be skilled and doing something important, yeah, but I actively do not want them getting any of Shepard's weird cult status.

[Vortex13]

I would say no more special than the soldiers at your command in XCOM, but I doubt that a good portion of the fanbase would enjoy spending 4 hours in character creation to see their avatar cut down by a stay shot on the first mission.

 

[Celtic Latino]

Hopefully not special at all. We had our Bhaalspawns and Shepard's and Inquisitors for all the demigod/special snowflake goodness. This time I'd like to see a protagonist that doesn't have pull with everyone and doesn't have the entire galaxy falling at their feet in worship. In fact I'd like to see the story play out as through it could've been almost anybody but so happened to be your PC thanks to cosmic circumstances.

The most specialness I'd like would depend on your class and background. Perhaps you're a biotic or a gifted tech. But it could've been another person given there are many techs, soldiers and biotics but that it happens to be your defining trait.

Just none of that chosen one/the universe depends on you stuff.

[Quarian Master Race]

That's lousy design.
 
That almost all modern games do something badly is not a reason not to try to improve it.

The only way to improve it with current technology is to play PvP multiplayer. A modern computer can't beat a human on equal terms( no, Deep Blue and Kasparov don't qualify as fair), so you either get a horde of trash or overpowered but still stupid bullet sponges. The alternative is cheating AI, which is basically an acknowledgment by devs that they are too lazy to bother with programming half decent opponents.

[Ahriman]

The only way to improve it with current technology is to play PvP multiplayer. A modern computer can't beat a human on equal terms( no, Deep Blue and Kasparov don't qualify as fair), so you either get a horde of trash or overpowered but still stupid bullet sponges. The alternative is cheating AI, which is basically an acknowledgment by devs that they are too lazy to bother with programming half decent opponents.

This is simply not true. Computer can own humans in shooter games if you simply unlock their reaction time and aim.

[PhroXenGold]

Eh, rules shmules. The battles in these games are always designed so that the baddies usually greatly outnumber your paltry team of adventurers, so they always have to be badass enough to kill them all to make it to the end of the journey. It was like this even in Origins, where the Warden could become laughably powerful if you spec'd him/her right. Aside from that, the game's AI will always be outdone by a good player. Just look at people who manage to do platinum solo in multiplayer. 

 

It ain't like Dart, Shana and that guy with a spear facing down a trio of mermen in Legend of Dragoon or something. 

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that both the PC and the enemies (and any other characters like squadmates) should all obey the same underlying game mechanics, particularly in RPGs and other similar games. They should share the same abilities, they should share the same weapons. A level 5 enemy should have the same stats as a level 5 PC (as an aside, DA:O did this pretty well). Any enemy firing a particular gun at you should have the same effect as you firing that gun at them. Squadmates should be every bit as powerful as the PC.

 

What should set the PC apart is the fact that you, the player are in control of them. You make their decisions in both combat and in levelling up. The PC wins because of the actions of the player, not because they recieve any inherent boosts or work off different mechanics from the enemies.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The only way to improve it with current technology is to play PvP multiplayer. A modern computer can't beat a human on equal terms( no, Deep Blue and Kasparov don't qualify as fair), so you either get a horde of trash or overpowered but still stupid bullet sponges. The alternative is cheating AI, which is basically an acknowledgment by devs that they are too lazy to bother with programming half decent opponents.

You just said it was impossible, and then criticized devs who don't do it, calling them lazy.

Think about that for a moment.

[LoRD KYRaN]

Hopefully not special at all. We had our Bhaalspawns and Shepard's and Inquisitors for all the demigod/special snowflake goodness. This time I'd like to see a protagonist that doesn't have pull with everyone and doesn't have the entire galaxy falling at their feet in worship. In fact I'd like to see the story play out as through it could've been almost anybody but so happened to be your PC thanks to cosmic circumstances.

The most specialness I'd like would depend on your class and background. Perhaps you're a biotic or a gifted tech. But it could've been another person given there are many techs, soldiers and biotics but that it happens to be your defining trait.

Just none of that chosen one/the universe depends on you stuff.

 

Um, you just described Shepard. It was cosmic circumstance that her Spectre audition happened to be the Eden Prime mission. Also cosmic circumstance, and stupidity, that Alenko activated the beacon. Though it was no small amount of bravery that made her throw herself at Alenko to save him and get the blast of the visions. Her background had no Bhaalspawn specialness to it; she was just a damn good soldier. Could have been any other damn good soldier too but it so happened to be her. And the rest was history.

 

Personally, I'm of the opinion that both the PC and the enemies (and any other characters like squadmates) should all obey the same underlying game mechanics, particularly in RPGs and other similar games. They should share the same abilities, they should share the same weapons. A level 5 enemy should have the same stats as a level 5 PC (as an aside, DA:O did this pretty well). Any enemy firing a particular gun at you should have the same effect as you firing that gun at them. Squadmates should be every bit as powerful as the PC.

 

What should set the PC apart is the fact that you, the player are in control of them. You make their decisions in both combat and in levelling up. The PC wins because of the actions of the player, not because they recieve any inherent boosts or work off different mechanics from the enemies.

 

Isn't that what we already kinda have? I remember dying with one shot when a geth snipes me. I remember sniping others dead with a single shot too. Seems bout fair lol.

 

Just curious but does anyone know if Legion's stats and skill sets were equal to or much better than similar geth enemies?

[PhroXenGold]

Isn't that what we already kinda have? I remember dying with one shot when a geth snipes me. I remember sniping others dead with a single shot too. Seems bout fair lol.

 

Somewhat. It's not perfect, but ME doesn't do a bad job of having everyone work from the same rules. There are some things where it fails, like squadmembers having a damage and cooldown penalty because...well, I dunno...and no-one other than you having to deal with limited ammo and so on, but it never seems to fall into the kind of horribly asymmetric system that BW have switched to in DA (where enemies have huge amounts of health but low damage compared to the PC, and thus they use completely different abilities from you as a consequence)