162 réponses à ce sujet

[Zekka]

Bioware could always make the whole first person to third person a camera toggle. GTA did it, battlefront is doing it so we know that frostbite 3 can handle it and Bethesda has been doing it.

[mickey111]

Didn't know this was a thing...

I prefer TPS, since I consider ME more of a RPG than shooter, and it'd be too expensive, which would left other aspects of the game lacking, so nah. I play ME and DA for story, not gameplay. Beside, there are TONS of excellent FPS, so this seems pointless. Beside I moslty just used biotics to kill things 

 

just because Mass Effect has more talking than Gears of War doesn't make it less of a shooter. If the low number of situations in Mass Effect where shooting can be avoided were higher, that wouldn't make it less of a shooter either, but I would welcome a greater number of opportunities to use diplomatic or sneaky alternatives to shooting. 

[Fidite Nemini]

Bioware could always make the whole first person to third person a camera toggle. GTA did it, battlefront is doing it so we know that frostbite 3 can handle it and Bethesda has been doing it.

 

That would be wasted effort. TP and FP have fundamentally different gameplay, so you can't make it work good for both. You either have TP based gameplay which would flatout suck trying to play with in FP, or you could have FP gameplay and TP would be superiour just because you have so much better perspective (looking over cover you're hiding behind, looking around corners, etc. pp.) that you can exploit.

 

If the devs are going to make it, they got to make it right. Toggles are great for cosmetic choices, but the difference between FP and TP isn't cosmentic.

[Zekka]

That would be wasted effort. TP and FP have fundamentally different gameplay, so you can't make it work good for both. You either have TP based gameplay which would flatout suck trying to play with in FP, or you could have FP gameplay and TP would be superiour just because you have so much better perspective (looking over cover you're hiding behind, looking around corners, etc. pp.) that you can exploit.

 

If the devs are going to make it, they got to make it right. Toggles are great for cosmetic choices, but the difference between FP and TP isn't cosmentic.

you can keep the cover mechanics in first person, I've seen it done before. The only annoyance I can think of would be the control layout.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                                 <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

I don't like FPS games at all. Played Skyrim in FPS and quickly switched to 3rd person view. Reason?  No peripheral vision and sword hacking is totally unnatural.  And, like someone else said, I'm totally disconnected from my character.  Besides, it's  like playing as a lone wolf, also an unnatural ME play style.

 

There's no T(eam) in F(irst) Person Shooter.

 

PS: Is the game studio going radical on us (ie: DAI)?

 

 

 

 

[Fidite Nemini]

you can keep the cover mechanics in first person, I've seen it done before. The only annoyance I can think of would be the control layout.

 
If you name the game I could look it up, because the only FP game make integral use of cover that I've played was DX:HR and that was switching into TP whenever you were in cover. I'm curious how that worked out, because the perspective limitations that FP comes with (you require direct line of sight or indirect informations to get a picture of any situation) obviously has a huuuge impact on how a level has to be designed so I'm curious how it was dealt with.

 

I don't like FPS games at all. Played Skyrim in FPS and quickly switched to 3rd person view. Reason?  No peripheral vision and sword hacking is totally unnatural.  And, like someone else said, I'm totally disconnected from my character.  Besides, it's  like playing as a lone wolf, also an unnatural ME play style.
 
There's no T(eam) in F(irst) Person Shooter.
 
PS: Is the game studio going radical on us (ie: DAI)?

 

Subjective immersion limitations (some people feel more immersed in FP than in TP and vice versa) aside, that notion that FPS are promoting lonewolfing or in reverse, aren't facilitating teamwork is plain wrong.

[Sanunes]

 
If you name the game I could look it up, because the only FP game make integral use of cover that I've played was DX:HR and that was switching into TP whenever you were in cover. I'm curious how that worked out, because the perspective limitations that FP comes with (you require direct line of sight or indirect informations to get a picture of any situation) obviously has a huuuge impact on how a level has to be designed so I'm curious how it was dealt with.

 

I personally hated the non-melee combat in Deus Ex for the gun combat when in cover was horrible. I can't think of a game that has done both the FPS and TPS elements well so you don't feel the game was designed for one in mind.

[Iakus]

Games with a first person perspective like Skyrim leave me feeling like I'm driving the character more than playing it.

 

I'll take third person, or isometric any time.  Why  should I bother designing a face if I cant see it?

[Killroy]

you can keep the cover mechanics in first person, I've seen it done before.

Where?

[maia0407]

Games with a first person perspective like Skyrim leave me feeling like I'm driving the character more than playing it.
 
I'll take third person, or isometric any time.  Why  should I bother designing a face if I cant see it?

Yep, I often forgot what my character looked like in Skyrim!

[JeffZero]

I was generally grateful to forget.

[RoboticWater]

Where?

GTA:V does it. Here's a clip. Of course, I've never played GTA:V in either perspective, so I have no Idea if the first person cover system is any fun.

 

That still doesn't negate the fact that a perspective would change how the game plays at a fundamental level. GTA's first person mode was a big enough gameplay addition that it was touted as a selling point.

[Wolfman]

Fallout 3 is an FPS and includes this thing called V.A.T.S., which is aim-assist.

Off topic, but I hope they bring that back in FO4.

[Malanek]

I think TPS handles melee quite a bit better than FPS do. You get that small extra view of where enemies are around you when you are up close and with dodging you actually get to see the projectiles miss (or not). When you biotic charge in it is good to have that extra layer of vision. Since they played this up quite a bit in ME3 MPer I think it is important to keep it.

[ExoGeniVI]

I've heard a substantial number of people prefer 3rd person for melee combat in Skyrim. Come to think of it, most players switched to 3rd person for Jedi Knight lightsaber battles.

[/size]

[Cyonan]

The walking analogy was said in response to the "why should we fix what's working" and the reason for that should be bleedingly obvious: to avoid stagnation.

 

I never, ever said that FP or TP were superiour/inferiour/whatever compared to each other.

 

And why exactly shouldn't BioWare attempt something new like using FP instead of TP in a new installment of the same franchise? What is TP for ME? Or do you expect the devs couldn't handle it right and you'd rather have them try it out on a game you wouldn't care about if it wasn't executed perfectly?

 

I'm really interested in your reasoning here, because TP is nothing integral to ME. What makes those games are the setting, the characters, the writing and the combat. Whichever perspective they use only directly effects the latter and it should go without saying that FP can make for great combat, it would simply be different from what we know from ME so far, which hardly is a bad thing if done correctly and the opposite idea that ME games should always be TP based is just a road to creative stagnation, bringing me full circle.

 

It's because Mass Effect has always been a third person cover based shooter and changing it to a FPS is a pretty drastic alteration of the core combat mechanics.

 

Which can actually be a risky move. As it stands right now, it's not much of a stretch to say that most Mass Effect fans are at least okay with TPS since that's what we've been playing for so long. Changing the genre of the game is going to ****** off a percentage of your fanbase who doesn't like FPS, it's just a question of how many.

 

On top of that there really isn't a solid reason to change. You can point out things that FP does better, but there are also things that TP does better which ultimately makes it feel like changing it for the sake of changing it.

 

Which I typically don't feel is a very good move when it comes to your core gameplay mechanics. There are better ways of avoiding stagnation. Hell, arguably each game in the series has changed up the third person combat enough to avoid that.

 

I do have faith that BioWare could make a solid FPS game if they wanted. I just don't think it would be a very smart move for them to change an existing established franchise to that style.

[Dean_the_Young]

The biggest reason you're not going to see a constant first-person perspective is sex scenes.

 

More seriously, because of Bioware's emphasis on cutscenes and dialogue conversations is built around third-person, without being compatible in intent with first-person. They've gotten increasingly far from the old 'stand still and talk forward' standards of Bethesda and older game conversations. We now have conversations in which both the NPC and the PC's body choerography is important- even  conversations where they aren't looking at eachother, but the visual is supposed to be seen from the side. Imagine, say, the Vega-Shepard fist fight, or the Garrus shooting match on the Citadel, entirely from Shepard's perspective. Forget the costs in trying to edit and adjust the camera angles from not just the 3rd person view, but also the Shepard perspective- a lot of the dynamics wouldn't even work. If the PC spins, vertigo. If the PC isn't looking- well, now every scene has to be built so the PC is always looking in the right direction, at the right time. That's more than a little up in the choreography challenge.

 

And that's just the frequent conversation pieces- you'll have some difficulties making the cover system work in first and third person simultaneously, which it would have to. Are we going to pop to third person every time Shepard is in cover? Or look backwards? Synching actions, routine and otherwise, is possible but going to take more time and cost. How important is peripheral vision between 1st person and 3rd person combat design? 1st person shooters generally avoid cover and rely on fast characters shooting on their feet and running in circles to make the enemy miss. 3rd person cover shooters are all about positioning and avoiding that.

 

 

Challenges are big... but ultimately, what's the benefit that would justify those costs? When even a 1st person view is going to constantly shift into third person for the frequent cutscenes and dialogue conversations, what's left to justify 1st person? Walking around from eye level during some auto-dialogue sequences? A few brief points of view.... that could be gotten by moving the camera for the shot?

 

What's a reliable benefit, worth the cost, that makes such a change an improvement? If it's not a good change, after all, change for its own sake is no virtue.

[wolfhowwl]

Translation: Our shoestring EA budget doesn't allow us to add a feature a million other games already have.

 

Millions of other titles added first person to a game built from the ground up for third person?

 

Your silly tryhard cynic routine is wearing thin.

[Fidite Nemini]

It's because Mass Effect has always been a third person cover based shooter and changing it to a FPS is a pretty drastic alteration of the core combat mechanics.

 

Which can actually be a risky move. As it stands right now, it's not much of a stretch to say that most Mass Effect fans are at least okay with TPS since that's what we've been playing for so long. Changing the genre of the game is going to ****** off a percentage of your fanbase who doesn't like FPS, it's just a question of how many.

 

On top of that there really isn't a solid reason to change. You can point out things that FP does better, but there are also things that TP does better which ultimately makes it feel like changing it for the sake of changing it.

 

Which I typically don't feel is a very good move when it comes to your core gameplay mechanics. There are better ways of avoiding stagnation. Hell, arguably each game in the series has changed up the third person combat enough to avoid that.

 

I do have faith that BioWare could make a solid FPS game if they wanted. I just don't think it would be a very smart move for them to change an existing established franchise to that style.

 

One can easily make the point that sticking to the same formula is likewise driving away players who've grown bored of the same stuff over and over again. Refining a formula isn't changing the fact it's still the same. just with some extra bits.

 

And yeah, FP does some things better than TP and vice versa, I had already said the same. But making a ME game FP isn't just changing it for the sake of change as the obvious meaning would be to try out something different. So unless different=bad, I don't see why change would be unfavourable.

 

I also feel like I have to point out that the original Shepard trilogy is done, so there's no necessity to stick to its standards. And just as much as people like a specific dish enough to eat it over and over again without complaining, making the same dish with a different flavour is a move that's not as radical as some of the rhetoric I've read in here might make people believe.

 

Case in point: the innumerable times people have suggested/asked for space-combat in Mass Effect, which is something completely out of the loop concerning what the existing ME gameplay has been about.

 

Now, you did say that you believe BioWare could make a good FP game. But on what basis do you say it wouldn't be a smart move to use the ME IP for it?

 

 

 

 

What's a reliable benefit, worth the cost, that makes such a change an improvement? If it's not a good change, after all, change for its own sake is no virtue.

 

That's a circular argument existential fallacy. What reliable benefit was there to create ME to begin with? BioWare didn't have much experience with cover-based third-person shooters, so why did they do it?

 

Without knowing the decision making process, the most probably answer is: a new potential audience. The same applies here.

[capn233]

They should stick with TPS only.

[themikefest]

I prefer ME games stay 3rd person

[Gothfather]

Mass effect is both a cover shooter and a squad tactical shooter. If you play on insanity you know ordering your quad to x point is important for crossfire and protecting from enemies flanking you. being able to see the map from a Third person perspective so you can see the tactical layout and order a squad member to X even if the protagonist can't see that location is an important aspect to game play I suspect many people would be disappointed seeing go bye bye.

 

I get that some people prefer FPS but there is room for other types of shooters than FPS. Not every game is better for being made a FPS. Not every developer tool is a nail so not all solutions to development is a hammer. FPS isn't the solution to make every game great or better by its inclusion.

[RoboticWater]

One can easily make the point that sticking to the same formula is likewise driving away players who've grown bored of the same stuff over and over again. Refining a formula isn't changing the fact it's still the same. just with some extra bits.

Getting tired of third person mechanics in games is like getting tired of third person perspective in novels. It's such a low level and ubiquitous trait that there's no reason one might get tired of it. I don't think I know anyone who's gotten tired of playing third person games in general. 
 

And yeah, FP does some things better than TP and vice versa, I had already said the same. But making a ME game FP isn't just changing it for the sake of change as the obvious meaning would be to try out something different. So unless different=bad, I don't see why change would be unfavourable.

Trying out something different is change for the sake of change. Sure, different doesn't = bad, but basic logic states that it doesn't necessarily = good either. Given that what we have is already great, I don't see any reason for BioWare to invest in what is ostensibly a risk. They have better things to do with their time.
 

I also feel like I have to point out that the original Shepard trilogy is done, so there's no necessity to stick to its standards. And just as much as people like a specific dish enough to eat it over and over again without complaining, making the same dish with a different flavour is a move that's not as radical as some of the rhetoric I've read in here might make people believe.

If BioWare want to cash in on consumer loyalty, then they do need to stick to standards. Players can easily adapt to a new story, but gameplay is a harder thing to forget.

Imagine if 343 released Halo 4 with TPS controls. Even if the game was still fun, it just wouldn't make any sense, especially if 343 were trying to make Halo 4 seem like the continuation of the series.

 

Case in point: the innumerable times people have suggested/asked for space-combat in Mass Effect, which is something completely out of the loop concerning what the existing ME gameplay has been about.

The difference here is that space battles are an addition, not a change. Going from third to first person is more of a step sideways than a step forward. Even if you convince me that FP controls would make the game play so much better (that's a big if), you couldn't convince me that the time needed to change ME's core combat would yield better results than a completely new feature on top of good existing combat. 

 

Now, you did say that you believe BioWare could make a good FP game. But on what basis do you say it wouldn't be a smart move to use the ME IP for it?

They could easily make a FP Mass Effect game... if it were a spin off. Mass Effect has an identity, and ME:A has to keep it up. Changing a core element of the gameplay in a potentially negative way isn't a good way of doing that.

 

That's a circular argument. What reliable benefit was there to create ME to begin with? BioWare didn't have much experience with cover-based third-person shooters, so why did they do it?

BioWare made Mass Effect a TPS because they though it would be fun. It is, so they should just keep it. There are so many other aspects of Mass Effect that require attention, why waste time on something that doesn't need to happen? It'd be much harder to convince me that first person controls are an investment worthy change because the jump from TPS to FPS is far less interesting than the jump from pure RPG to RPG/TPS.

[Il Divo]

 

 

BioWare made Mass Effect a TPS because they though it would be fun. It is, so they should just keep it. There are so many other aspects of Mass Effect that require attention, why waste time on something that doesn't need to happen? It'd be much harder to convince me that first person controls are an investment worthy change because the jump from TPS to FPS is far less interesting than the jump from pure RPG to RPG/TPS.

 

I think that's the other big question here. Granted, let's say Bioware's issue at the moment is keeping Mass Effect fresh. Why would making the game into an fps fix that issue? In regards to the fan base, is everyone complaining about how much they can't stand the third person combat?

[Fidite Nemini]

 

They could easily make a FP Mass Effect game... if it were a spin off. Mass Effect has an identity, and ME:A has to keep it up. Changing a core element of the gameplay in a potentially negative way isn't a good way of doing that.

 

Isn't ME:A already a spin-off, considering it's not the continuation of the Shepard trilogy?

Note that I'm not saying ME:A should be a FP based game and that I've argued with Cyonan because making a FP based game wouldn't necessitate making a whole new IP for it.

So I was never disinclined to a spin-off as long as it's set in the ME universe. Doesn't that meet the criteria you brought forth?