57 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

As I pointed out earlier: it's a good thought in theory, but impractical. Shooter AI just isn't advanced enough to accommodate universal squad control.

That's a good argument against shooters.

[RoboticWater]

That's a good argument against shooters.

Except that it isn't.

 

While you may prefer that every game be a some kind of CRPG, there are other types of games that are both functional and fun. As it so happens, the shooter genre has and continues to contain many fantastic games.

 

Mass Effect is, at its core, a shooter-RPG hybrid, and it would severely suffer if it lost either part.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Except that it isn't.

While you may prefer that every game be a some kind of CRPG, there are other types of games that are both functional and fun. As it so happens, the shooter genre has and continues to contain many fantastic games.

Mass Effect is, at its core, a shooter-RPG hybrid, and it would severely suffer if it lost either part.

And I'm not asking it to.

[RoboticWater]

And I'm not asking it to.

Not directly, but your comment seemed to imply a distaste for Mass Effect's shooter mechanics and the concessions within the RPG mechanics that must be made for their existence.

[Broganisity]

Not directly, but your comment seemed to imply a distaste for Mass Effect's shooter mechanics and the concessions within the RPG mechanics that must be made for their existence.

 

I think he meant that the issues with AI in shooters compared to other games was a reason not to incorporate such a mechanic into Mass Effect. . .?

[Sartoz]

                                                                                  <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

 

Ideally, this does give you an advantage.

 

And that is to play a different class and get to know if you like it without the need to re-roll your character and start from the top again.

[Cyonan]

There's actually nothing really wrong with the shooter AI. It's more that allowing you to control every squadmate would require a lot of changes to the core gameplay, because the game is designed to be played as a single character that is 2-3 times stronger than the rest of the characters you bring with you.

[heinoMK2]

No. I'm adamantely against this.

 

The moment this is implemented is the moment your squadmates become nothing more than lifeless puppets without any character/roleplaying depth during combat. It also devalues the immersion of having an actual main character in the game - something that was a central point of ME series.

I'd rather hear some audio feedback from my squadmates during the fight, have them comment on what's happening more often, maybe even request help when they get pinned down under enemy fire and give them more diverse orders to improve in-combat immersion even further. Things like this are simply obsolete and unnatural when you command your little puppet army, jumping from character to character at will, and will probably get neglected even more in such a case.

[Cyonan]

No. I'm adamantely against this.

 

The moment this is implemented is the moment your squadmates become nothing more than lifeless puppets without any character/roleplaying depth during combat. It also devalues the immersion of having an actual main character in the game - something that was a central point of ME series.

I'd rather hear some audio feedback from my squadmates during the fight, have them comment on what's happening more often, maybe even request help when they get pinned down under enemy fire and give them more diverse orders to improve in-combat immersion even further. Things like this are simply obsolete and unnatural when you command your little puppet army, jumping from character to character at will, and will probably get neglected even more in such a case.

 

We need another Garrus who constantly proclaims his love for his rifle during combat.

[Vazgen]

Was done in Conflict TPS games well enough (at least in the first three, haven't played the others). I support this. Gives a lot of tactical options and better control of the battlefield. Characterization was fine either. Though it'll be limited with only two squadmates. A squad of 4 works best for this IMO.

[cap and gown]

First off, I'm against this idea. Second, what is the point? The vast, overwhelming majority of players have probably never issued a squad order beyond the tutorial. Go watch any random playthrough. How many times have you seen players issue positioning orders? Except for people playing on insanity, almost none. How many players have squad mate power use set to on? Probably the overwhelming majority. Again, it is the more skilled, insanity players who turn off squad mate power use.

 

And then what? You want to ruin the entire pacing of the game by introducing a tactical cam? Are you just saying you want Dragon Age with guns. Yuck. Mass Effect has its own flavor. Let it stay true to itself, not morph into Dragon Age.

 

The only two changes I would ask for are:

1) Squad mates do not advance closer to the enemy than the player character. (I of having a cut scene end and having Liara charge right at an enemy before I have a chance to position her somewhere safe.)

2) An audio cue for when squad mates powers have cooled down and are ready to use again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's actually nothing really wrong with the shooter AI. It's more that allowing you to control every squadmate would require a lot of changes to the core gameplay, because the game is designed to be played as a single character that is 2-3 times stronger than the rest of the characters you bring with you.

That's actually a change they should make anyway. The mechanics should be symmetrical.

Yes, I'm aware BioWare hasn't made a game like that in over a decade.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Not directly, but your comment seemed to imply a distaste for Mass Effect's shooter mechanics and the concessions within the RPG mechanics that must be made for their existence.

Implication. Yes, we have dismissed this claim.

[Cyonan]

That's actually a change they should make anyway. The mechanics should be symmetrical.

Yes, I'm aware BioWare hasn't made a game like that in over a decade.

 

Which would be terrible for the core combat of Mass Effect. You're wanting them to make it into something that it's not, and has never been.

 

It'd be like if I asked them to make Baldur's Gate 3, only it should be hack and slash Diablo style combat which was totally a legit way of playing the original games because I could spam click on enemies.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Which would be terrible for the core combat of Mass Effect.

But much better for the credibility of the setting.

Why worry about fighting things if there's nothing worth fighting for? If the setting is broken, why care about the story or characters?

Honestly, if this forum were designing the game, it would guaranteed to be terrible.

[Joseph Warrick]

No squadmate direct control and for the love of Xenu, no "tactical camera". Just tweak squadmate AI so it isn't like Jack rushing towards enemies and dying in ME2. ME3 was fine, I don't know that this needs much improvement.

[Sartoz]

No. I'm adamantely against this.

 

The moment this is implemented is the moment your squadmates become nothing more than lifeless puppets without any character/roleplaying depth during combat. It also devalues the immersion of having an actual main character in the game - something that was a central point of ME series.

I'd rather hear some audio feedback from my squadmates during the fight, have them comment on what's happening more often, maybe even request help when they get pinned down under enemy fire and give them more diverse orders to improve in-combat immersion even further. Things like this are simply obsolete and unnatural when you command your little puppet army, jumping from character to character at will, and will probably get neglected even more in such a case.

 

                                                                                            <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

Lifeless puppets?

First, there is no obligation to you to jump from one puppet to another. So you can play as you please.

 

 

Second, the squad is already fairly useless and can't  take proper advantage of  the terrain to protect themselves from enemy fire (currently playing ME3 again).  And if I have to conduct their battles to keep them alive then combat with a squad is a disadvantage to me. Squad combat means that every member ought to know what their doing... alas, not the case with ME3. 

[heinoMK2]

                                                                                            <<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>

Lifeless puppets?

First, there is no obligation to you to jump from one puppet to another. So you can play as you please.

 

 

Second, the squad is already fairly useless and can't  take proper advantage of  the terrain to protect themselves from enemy fire (currently playing ME3 again).  And if I have to conduct their battles to keep them alive then combat with a squad is a disadvantage to me. Squad combat means that every member ought to know what their doing... alas, not the case with ME3. 

If there is a complete control of the party like suggested, the devs *will* start to balance the game around this. It just happens naturally.

I also do like to issue commands and to position my squad tactically, it's just that since ME1 there seems to have been a constant devaluation, degradation and marginalization of the importance of such a management. Partly due to poorer AI, partly to ME3 being fairly easy.

[Cyonan]

But much better for the credibility of the setting.

Why worry about fighting things if there's nothing worth fighting for? If the setting is broken, why care about the story or characters?

Honestly, if this forum were designing the game, it would guaranteed to be terrible.

 

But Mass Effect is not just a story being told to us that we have some influence over. Video games still need to be fun for the hours of actual combat that we'll be doing in it that have very little to do with the story beyond it telling me why I'm shooting so many faceless dudes in the face.

 

You can try to ignore Mass Effect being an action shooter all you want but it still is one, and they can't neglect the gameplay of that. The damage output isn't a serious issue, but controlling multiple characters generally just doesn't work very well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But Mass Effect is not just a story being told to us that we have some influence over.

It should never be that, anyway. Roleplaying games should resemble playgrounds more than they resemble books or movies.

Video games still need to be fun for the hours of actual combat that we'll be doing in it that have very little to do with the story beyond it telling me why I'm shooting so many faceless dudes in the face.

It's never fun if it breaks the rest of the game.

I've played action games that I enjoyed. I loved the Samurai Shodown games when I was younger. Those were, absolutely, just fast-paced fun. But a game like Mass Effect is never going to be that because there's way too much space between the combat. So that's not why I play them.

You can try to ignore Mass Effect being an action shooter all you want but it still is one, and they can't neglect the gameplay of that. The damage output isn't a serious issue, but controlling multiple characters generally just doesn't work very well.

I don't particularly need to control all of the party members. I'd just like the game not to treat the main character's death any differently from the squadmates' deaths. In ME1, I was choosing targets for everyone and activating everyone's abilities. Actually taking the shots for them was unnecessary (I didn't really want to take the shots for Shepard, either). I already had about as much control of the party as I need.

I just don't want the game the end immediately when the main character falls, even though the rest of the squad is still fighting. The whole party should need to get wiped for the game to end.

[Cyonan]

It should never be that, anyway. Roleplaying games should resemble playgrounds more than they resemble books or movies.
It's never fun if it breaks the rest of the game.

I've played action games that I enjoyed. I loved the Samurai Shodown games when I was younger. Those were, absolutely, just fast-paced fun. But a game like Mass Effect is never going to be that because there's way too much space between the combat. So that's not why I play them.

 

Mass Effect is designed as a shooter/RPG hybrid.

 

It doesn't particularly matter if you don't play it for the action half, it's still going to be there and it's going to take up the bulk of the combat because that's all shooters are is combat. Everything else gets to be RPG.

 

I don't particularly need to control all of the party members. I'd just like the game not to treat the main character's death any differently from the squadmates' deaths. In ME1, I was choosing targets for everyone and activating everyone's abilities. Actually taking the shots for them was unnecessary (I didn't really want to take the shots for Shepard, either). I already had about as much control of the party as I need.

I just don't want the game the end immediately when the main character falls, even though the rest of the squad is still fighting. The whole party should need to get wiped for the game to end.

 

I don't know that this would be gamebreaking, just boring to watch your extremely inept squadmate AI try to fight on.

 

It would also require significant increases in difficulty assuming that your squadmates were still allowed to revive you.

[MarchWaltz]

As I pointed out earlier: it's a good thought in theory, but impractical. Shooter AI just isn't advanced enough to accommodate universal squad control.

Republic Commando. If you go down you can tell your friends to either clear the area or pick you up.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mass Effect is designed as a shooter/RPG hybrid.

It doesn't particularly matter if you don't play it for the action half, it's still going to be there and it's going to take up the bulk of the combat because that's all shooters are is combat. Everything else gets to be RPG.


I don't know that this would be gamebreaking, just boring to watch your extremely inept squadmate AI try to fight on.

It would also require significant increases in difficulty assuming that your squadmates were still allowed to revive you.

Perhaps they could become super-aggressive when you fell, so either they would also die quickly, or if there just mop-up to do they could handle it.

And we wouldn't even necessarily have to see it; out POV character is down. They could just resolve the rest of the combat mathematically and get it done in a few seconds.

[Malanek]

First off, I'm against this idea. Second, what is the point? The vast, overwhelming majority of players have probably never issued a squad order beyond the tutorial. Go watch any random playthrough. How many times have you seen players issue positioning orders? Except for people playing on insanity, almost none. How many players have squad mate power use set to on? Probably the overwhelming majority. Again, it is the more skilled, insanity players who turn off squad mate power use.

 

And then what? You want to ruin the entire pacing of the game by introducing a tactical cam? Are you just saying you want Dragon Age with guns. Yuck. Mass Effect has its own flavor. Let it stay true to itself, not morph into Dragon Age.

 

The only two changes I would ask for are:

1) Squad mates do not advance closer to the enemy than the player character. (I of having a cut scene end and having Liara charge right at an enemy before I have a chance to position her somewhere safe.)

2) An audio cue for when squad mates powers have cooled down and are ready to use again.

I don't think the OP was asking for a tactical cam. He just wanted to be able to switch between teammates on the fly and take control of them. Have you played Evolve? Like that. I would like it simply because it offers more variety in gameplay. We are not allowed to play as a Krogan or Asari, presumably because of story reasons, so why not give us a taste of the gameplay? It is quite different using different dodges, melees, powersets, health and shield values etc

[PhroXenGold]

Perhaps they could become super-aggressive when you fell, so either they would also die quickly, or if there just mop-up to do they could handle it.

And we wouldn't even necessarily have to see it; out POV character is down. They could just resolve the rest of the combat mathematically and get it done in a few seconds.

 

The easiest way to get round the tedium of waiting for the battle to end while you'e lying there out old is to have a menu pop up letting you chose between waiting it out, or reloading and playing it again as we have to do now....