162 réponses à ce sujet

[RoboticWater]

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?

I'd rather not get into the semantics behind naming conventions for continuations of IP, but I'd consider a FP Mass Effect to be what Halo Wars was to Halo and ME:A more like what Halo:Reach was to Halo.

 

Of course, BioWare's a bit different than Bungie. We know they can make up entirely new IP and still make it a good game as well as juggle multiple IP with completely different gameplay. I think it's reasonable to want BioWare to maintain this pattern: make new IP with distinct gameplay, continue that franchise with familiar but evolved gameplay, and make a new IP if they want to try new gameplay, if nothing else but to guarantee a steady stream of both refreshing gameplay and new stories as well as maintaining the integrity and familiarity of existing franchises.

 

Bottom line: specifically for the first game after the original trilogy, BioWare should maintain the core gameplay standards Mass Effect, lest they risk loosing fan loyalty. After that, it can be fair game for spin offs (much like it is now for Halo [bring on Halo Wars 2, baby!]). However, given BioWare's history, I think it's probably better that they make a new IP to encapsulate their new gameplay.

[Zekka]

 
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.

 

 

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.

 

Where?

 

 

Crysis 1, 2 & 3 has it, Killzone 1, 2 & 3 has it, GTA V has it, Deus Ex Human Revolution and Deus Ex Mankind divided, Far Cry 3 has it. I'm sure there's many more games that have it too.

[duckley]

No FP please

[goishen]

The world has enough first person shooters. 

 

It doesn't have enough third person shooters. 

[Cyonan]

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?

 

Different isn't bad, but I think they should generally have a reason that isn't "just to be different".

 

Changing to FPS feels less like making the same dish with a new flavour and more like just replacing it with an entirely new dish. It's like going to a restaurant known for having great wings and them suddenly going "sorry, we only sell hamburgers now". Burgers are great and all, but I came here for wings.

 

I would say that they shouldn't make Andromeda be an entirely space combat game either. Maybe one or two levels, but then I suspect it wouldn't be done very well.

 

I say that it wouldn't be a smart move because a shift in genre is pretty much guaranteed to ****** fans off. If, for example, Fire Emblem decided to become a RTS game in the next installment that would make me hesitant about getting it. It's not even that I hate RTS, but I buy Fire Emblem games for the turn based strategy. Those core mechanics they've worked to refine for the last 25 years is what keeps me coming back to the series.

 

I will admit that a spin off game could work that doesn't hinder progress on the main series, kind of like when they had Ensemble Studios make Halo Wars.

 

My faith in that would be dependent on who is making it, though.

[KaiserShep]

That's why I had been wondering how BioWare would try and handle the dialogue.

 

I disagree though that FP would bring nothing special to players. FP if handled correctly can be incredibly immersive with a game's atmosphere as you aren't a disconnected camera floating above your character and instead look directly through his/her eyes. For one, cou are closer to the earth in that perspective. That might not sound like something special, but that alone can be exploited to create an intense feeling of dimensions that level artists can play with which doesn't easily compare to panning around a camera.

 

We could probably go back and forth about the difficulties and possible benefits to having a ME FP that wouldn't be answered until we actually get a sample to really experience though.

 

Well, if it was dedicated to the first person perspective, then dialogue would simply be handled the way other games have done it: just having dialogue take place from the "eyes" of the character entirely. 

 

I didn't say that it brings nothing special to players; I said it brings nothing new, which it doesn't. What's "special" is really up to the individual, but I personally get absolutely nothing out of it, especially when it comes to things like dialogue. I do find the idea that this would bring something special to the franchise rather dubious, however. It wouldn't introduce something new to gaming, it would just make Mass Effect play more like many other games that already implement this method of interfacing with the game world. It would either go full first-person view, like CoD, or do a hybrid of FPS gameplay and third-person perspective cut scenes like, say, Destiny. Either way, it's just going to be like a game we've played before. 

[Catastrophy]

I don't think FPS would works as well with the dodging and power casting.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's a circular argument existential fallacy. What reliable benefit was there to create ME to begin with?

 

Money from the already established market. More specifically- expected profit, which is when money exceeds costs.

 

 

BioWare didn't have much experience with cover-based third-person shooters, so why did they do it?

 

 

 

Because a company can only make money by selling a product.

 

Yes, they didn't have experience- and it shows- but third-person shooters don't interfere with their core competency of character driven narratives.

 

 

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

 

 

It only applies very poorly here- not only is there not a similarly large market of 'will only play first person shooters,' the mechanics of 1st person POV actively work against the developed competeny for cinematic dialogue sequences. We can track the consistent improvement and emphasis of this design style that Bioware's developed- the output of their DMP as presented through games- and we have plenty of Dev engagement in the past to get various degrees of understanding of their DMP.

 

1st person POV is not simply a toggle: it involves a great deal of refinement and model manipulation that Devs (and people with experience in digital modeling) have already shared. We also know that things that would be much simpler to toggle- full dialogue prompts instead of just paraphrases, muting PC's, and similar- are not the be-all that fans often think they are, but regularly fail Bioware's sense of quality.

 

Justifying 1st person means identifying the people who would only play with the inclusion of 1st person- because most people who enjoy 1st person also go along with 3rd person and are already a tapped potential audience- and then weighing whether the quality of a 1st person pov (which would either be abandoned for dialogue scenes or be zero-sum in quality focus) could be provided at the appropriate cost.

[NRieh]

Actually, FP view does not necessarily mean 'shooter' (as people normally understand the word). 

 

E.g. 'Dishonored' is anything but a 'shooter', and same true for Bioshock:Infinite. FP + an option to shoot does not make either of those  Unreal Tournament (which IS the 200% action-FPS).  Not to mention that Dishonored has one of the most varied and flexible gameplay I've ever seen. It's stealth, close melee fights, shooting things, 'void magic', using tech skills etc, lethal or non-lethal. DeusEx HR like that too.

 

I can't say I want MEA to go FP, but I just don't understand why some people can't see the difference between the genre and the camera mode.  

 

 

Well, if it was dedicated to the first person perspective, then dialogue would simply be handled the way other games have done it: just having dialogue take place from the "eyes" of the character entirely.

Nope. DeusEx HR. All the scenes have TP Adam. Dishonored 2 is going to be like that too (very likely, we haven't seen the gameplay yet), same true for the upcoming Mirror's Edge.

[Chealec]

I like FPS games and I like TPS games ... I've yet to be convinced by a game that attempts to implement both; one mode suffers or the other.

 

I'm happy for BioWare to stick with TPS for MEA.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nope. DeusEx HR. All the scenes have TP Adam. Dishonored 2 is going to be like that too (very likely, we haven't seen the gameplay yet), same true for the upcoming Mirror's Edge.

 

Which is what I expect would occur with Mass Effect as well- Bioware's doing better and doing well at TP conversations, and no one's made a compelling case of why or how a FP perspective would improve on that- so any FP would only be for the combat side of things- and that brings up whether it'd actually improve things, especially if done in parallel to TP. Focusing on SP is one thing, but having it in conjunction with TP is a different story- and I can't think of any remarkably successful combat systems that do either well when they do both.

[Fidite Nemini]

Money from the already established market. More specifically- expected profit, which is when money exceeds costs.

 
And how is that different to using an already established IP to make a FP game? Any potential costs you'd need to spend on developing a new setting don't apply if you use an existing one, that's massive savings.
 

Yes, they didn't have experience- and it shows- but third-person shooters don't interfere with their core competency of character driven narratives.

Neither do FP. FP is a gameplay and perspective change, not a writing change. The only thing it has a sizeable impact on is needing a different choreography during cutscenes/dialogue and there's ample precendent how BioWare evolved their work in that regard if you just look at how they handled it in the original ME games respectively.
 

It only applies very poorly here- not only is there not a similarly large market of 'will only play first person shooters,'

 

Assuming the only audience for a FP ME game would be people who only play FPS ...

 

the mechanics of 1st person POV actively work against the developed competeny for cinematic dialogue sequences. We can track the consistent improvement and emphasis of this design style that Bioware's developed- the output of their DMP as presented through games- and we have plenty of Dev engagement in the past to get various degrees of understanding of their DMP.

1st person POV is not simply a toggle: it involves a great deal of refinement and model manipulation that Devs (and people with experience in digital modeling) have already shared. We also know that things that would be much simpler to toggle- full dialogue prompts instead of just paraphrases, muting PC's, and similar- are not the be-all that fans often think they are, but regularly fail Bioware's sense of quality.

 

Not, they don't. They are different, but not incompatible. They'd have to develop a different choreography and perspective, but the majority of their established competence is as viable as ever in form of the characters the player would interact with. Making the game FP doesn't equal throwing all previously learned expertise to the winds.
 

Justifying 1st person means identifying the people who would only play with the inclusion of 1st person- because most people who enjoy 1st person also go along with 3rd person and are already a tapped potential audience- and then weighing whether the quality of a 1st person pov (which would either be abandoned for dialogue scenes or be zero-sum in quality focus) could be provided at the appropriate cost.

 

That makes no sense. You're simply assuming that people who'd like FP game also already like TP game, but that people who already like TP somehow wouldn't enjoy FP.

 

 

 

Overall, I get the impression you're arguing against the inclusion of a FP game in general. Is that the case or am I misunderstanding your basis?

[Mdizzletr0n]

FP would alienate quite a few people, IMO. Either those that hate the perspective and movement and/or the people that can't play due to health reasons. Sure, maybe it might bring a few more people to MEA but would it really be worth it?

Also, if I create a female protagonist, how am I gonna see DAT ASS? :/

[trevelyan_shep]

FP just gives me migraines to the extreme. They should just stick to what they are good at.

[Fidite Nemini]

FP would alienate quite a few people, IMO. Either those that hate the perspective and movement and/or the people that can't play due to health reasons. Sure, maybe it might bring a few more people to MEA but would it really be worth it?

Also, if I create a female protagonist, how am I gonna see DAT ASS? :/

 

Whom such a move would alienate and whom it would please is pretty much pure speculation based on personal bias (which obviously includes me, just in case someone would misinterprete this as me attacking their opinions).

 

Health reasons, I don't know how much of a concern that is. Are you talking about motion sickness?

 

DAT ASS however is a significant point you make. The character creation process would be something that would have an entirely different focus in a FP game, if it were included in the first place. Which is as much a potential negative as it could be a positive. BioWare was already looking at recognition value a couple times (so far as to remove the option for companions to equip different armor in DAII and even in DAI, equipped armor always has a recognizable form when used on companions). So in a FP based game, they could make a snugly defined protagonist (or more if they wanted to give options, like say male/female, or alien species for example) whose set appearance could bring solid recognition value as opposed to the default Shepard we had in the ME trilogy so far (and I personally haven't used the default looks even once).

 

Like I've said, lots of potential problems that need solving, but also lots of potential for different gameplay blowing fresh wind into the IP sails. Limiting an IP only to one specific gameplay may play to their strenghts, but it's also limiting them

 

And since the question has been asked and was evidently a significant enough thought for devs to comment on, the interest for a FP ME game is there. It may be too expensive because it means lots of working hours and potential manpower needed to make a satisfying product at this time, but my opinion is they should leave themselves the option and play with the idea some more. I would love to try out something like this.

 

 

 

 

FP just gives me migraines to the extreme. They should just stick to what they are good at.

 

If it's not motion sickness that's linked to the perception and movement difference, FP perspective causing migraines is more likely to be caused by subpar visual settings like FOV. Extremely narrow or wide FOV is known to stress eyes and related issues.

 

Not saying you should risk getting migraines by testing settings to find an acceptable setting for you, but if anyone is having such problems, changing some settings can definately help or even eliminate the strain. Likewise, tweaking monitor/TV settings such as brightness can help.

[Pasquale1234]

I've played Fallout and really had a hard time with it despite VATs as I couldn't use VATs often enough to compensate for my injury. I had to bump the difficulty way down to get through the game. I'll still get FO4 though and play on the easiest setting. I really hate to put the game on casual (or whatever their version is, can't remember) as I like to feel like my character's upgrades and stuff are helping. Playing on easy takes away that feeling but, oh well, it's either that or not experience the game. I can play first person in Skyrim as the medieval weapons don't require the same sort of movements for accuracy that aggravate my thumb injury.  I can just run up and whack on a monster and be fine.

Yes, FO3 does limit action points which limits VATS usage - but the game also provides mechanics that help overcome some of that. How you allocate SPECIAL points, perks, chems, followers, and using the most effective weaponry for the foe - all of these things support optimal use of the VATS system.
 

Despite my physical reason for having problems with first person, I still don't get the appeal. My understanding is that first person is supposed to make the story and environment feel more real to the player. For me, first person makes me feel disconnected from my character as I can't see her. I like watching my character in third person and rarely seeing my character distances me from her. First person also feels weird as there is no body awareness like there is in real life. Sometimes you might see your hands but you rarely see feet or your nose when you cross your eyes like you would in real life. It feels like I'm a body-less phantom running around the game doing stuff.

It is true that people have become very accustomed to video entertainment - e.g., feeling a sense of immersion while watching other people do stuff.

Third person can help in that it can give you a better sense of where your character is in the world. For many things - walking around, engaging in combat - I quite like 3rd person. Those things are easy, because the character typically does exactly what you expect them to do, based on the control inputs you provide. For dialogue, though, I tend to prefer 1st person. With only a paraphrase (or P/R interrupt), you really don't know what the character will say or do in response to any given input. Then I'm suddenly watching this character - over whom I've lost control - speak and act in ways I might not expect. That's when I feel disconnected from the character I'm supposed to be playing.

I really like what Dragon's Dogma did. The game is mostly 3rd person, cut-scenes exist only during major story moments, and all of the protag's dialogue choices are 1st person and simple text lines. The writers didn't even specify exact verbiage, leaving the player to head-canon in whatever way best suits their character.

The Dragon's Dogma protagonist also uses simple, neutral walk / run animations, which pleases me immensely. Some NPCs have highly stylized walk animations.

[Fidite Nemini]

Yes, FO3 does limit action points which limits VATS usage - but the game also provides mechanics that help overcome some of that. How you allocate SPECIAL points, perks, chems, followers, and using the most effective weaponry for the foe - all of these things support optimal use of the VATS system.

 

Grim Reaper's Sprint + high crit build + Backwater Rifle/Reservist's Rifle = at least 1 dead enemy per VATS = 100% AP refill = at least 1 more dead enemy next VATS = PAIN TRAIN!!!

[johnj1979]

Mass Effect isn't a FPS

[Guanxii]

Risky... Why? The gun models would need work sure which would add to dev time/cost but the graphical fidelity of the environment and npcs should be high enough that this shouldn't be a technical issue in 2015. If anything it would conceal comparatively poor animation during combat (going by DAI) of the player character by todays standards. Would be a feature I would welcome as this would be amazing on a vanguard.

 

Could you imagine doing krogan headbutts in first person?

[Sanunes]

Risky... Why? The gun models would need work sure which would add to dev time/cost but the graphical fidelity of the environment and npcs should be high enough that this shouldn't be a technical issue in 2015. If anything it would conceal comparatively poor animation during combat (going by DAI) of the player character by todays standards. Would be a feature I would welcome as this would be amazing on a vanguard.

 

Could you imagine doing krogan headbutts in first person?

 

People hate change, look at all the negativity towards BioWare when they changed overheating to thermal clips and that doesn't change how a person views the game.  It could be a risk in their eyes because of what we as a community have been doing since the first game.

[KaiserShep]

Risky... Why? The gun models would need work sure which would add to dev time/cost but the graphical fidelity of the environment and npcs should be high enough that this shouldn't be a technical issue in 2015. If anything it would conceal comparatively poor animation during combat (going by DAI) of the player character by todays standards. Would be a feature I would welcome as this would be amazing on a vanguard.
 
Could you imagine doing krogan headbutts in first person?

I can honestly say that this is something that would positively ruin the gameplay for me. I'd much rather they improve upon the current system than can it, and I find hybrids to be terrible. I think DE:HR's method sucks hard.

[CuriousArtemis]

Hmm I'd be fine with this but I also like seeing my character when I'm playing. But hey it's not going to happen so no biggie

 

I cannot believe this has five pages of conversation lol

[Gileadan]

*boots up Skyrim*

*rolls mouse wheel up and down*

 

Huh.

 

Technology wise, this shouldn't be overly hard, since Frostbite 3 already features support for a third person view - BF4's spectator mode lets you switch between first and third person whenever you like.

 

I'm easy, I don't mind either perspective. I do find first person more immersive though.

[Inquisitor_Jonah]

Good. If ME ever became an FPS then I'm not buying it anymore lol

[Guanxii]

People hate change, look at all the negativity towards BioWare when they changed overheating to thermal clips and that doesn't change how a person views the game.  It could be a risk in their eyes because of what we as a community have been doing since the first game.

I always prefer 1st person in Role Playing Games - it's counter logical to take the opposite position. It's so ubiquitous now in mainstream action/RPG titles it's strange that you don't have a range of different camera perspectives in a big budget AAA game published by EA. The Third Person view is important for squad-based tactical gameplay in singleplayer but multiplayer is a different story. Mass Effect gets a bad rap for it's gameplay in mainstream gaming circles; adding a 1st person view might go some way towards broadening it's appeal despite aliening people looking for any excuse to boycott the game.

 

I can honestly say that this is something that would positively ruin the gameplay for me. I'd much rather they improve upon the current system than can it, and I find hybrids to be terrible. I think DE:HR's method sucks hard.

It would be an optional feature surely so it's hard to say having the ability to change camera perspectives would ruin your experience. Many third person games now have adjustable camera perspective toggles, e.g. GTA V now features a 1st person view and it works seamlessly.

 

First person view wouldn't be ideal for all gameplay styles and classes but for soldiers, infiltrators (snipers) and vanguards (shotguns) in multiplayer it would be hugely preferable for me.