63 réponses à ce sujet

[Regan_Cousland]

One of the things I liked about Mass Effect 1 was that conflict could break out anywhere: on the presidium, in a nightclub, in the middle of a settlement only seconds after a pleasant conversation with an NPC ... anywhere. You were never truly safe, wherever you happened to be. And knowing that a krogan might head-butt you bodily through a shop window at any moment (well, kinda) made the world feel more realistic and dangerous.

I'm sure we all remember being ambushed by a pair of Saren's thugs as we made our leisurely way to Chora's Den for the first time.

There was, however, nothing so spontaneous in Mass Effect 2 or 3.

 

While those games boasted (arguably) better combat, they also became more gamey in that they restricted all combat to shooting galleries full of waist-high cover points. If you were on the presidium, you knew you were safe. If you were in any kind of a hub location, you knew you were safe; there was no tension whatsoever -- and the moment you saw a conveniently placed crate and your whole team drew their weapons, unbidden, and started shouting gung-ho catchphrases like, "Lock 'n' load!", you knew it was Gears of War time. lol

In Mass Effect: Andromea, I'd like a return to the ME1 approach. Or something like it, at least. There has to be a way to keep combat visceral, exciting and largely skill-based without forcing players to rely on cover spots ALL of the time.

Perhaps some kind of hybrid between the RPG combat mechanics of ME1 and the third-person-shooter mechanics of successive games is the answer. 

Thoughts? How would you like combat to work, and how do you think it will work, in ME:A given the inevitable open-world sandboxes that Andromeda is bound to include following DA:I?

[Laughing_Man]

I agree, noticed it myself. Anything that adds to immersion and makes the world feel more real, is welcome in my book.

 

On a similar topic, I would add that Shepard as a Spectre with a giant bulls-eye on his head, going around on the Citadel unarmed and unarmored,

and encountering one situation after another where he needs to "find" a conveniently placed pistol, receive one from a non-Spectre,

saved by someone, or lazily turn around towards the one pointing a gun to his head and take it without getting his brains aired - was incredibly silly.

[AlanC9]

Of course, even if they had put cover around the Citadel, we'd still have known that we'd never have needed it, since you couldn't draw or holster weapons. Devs have said that the last-gen consoles didn't have enough memory for both combat and noncombat animations. (Not a problem for ME1 since it had fewer animations.)

[Ahglock]

While I agree it may be hard to pull off.  Though there are a lot of ideas that can come from it.  Better places to ambush or be ambushed can be based on terrain.  your willingness to get into a fight might take into account how far off some cover is.  Do you try to talk it out or hope you can survive a fight with no cover or maybe make it to that cover 5-6 seconds of sprinting away.  Basically I'd like them to balance combat around having cover, so being out of cover is a quick way to die.  But have situations and ways for fights to break out without any cover nearby.

[Nomen Mendax]

I don't have much to add but agree with the general point that anything that makes MEA less "gamey" is probably a good thing. I'm not a huge fan of the cover mechanic (particularly when its thin but invulnerable glass cover) so I'd be happy if that got changed too. 

[cap and gown]

I have an idea: no cover anywhere and surround the player with enemies who have perfect aim and will one shot kill you every time. Talk about skill!

 

I am tired of all these complaints about being able to take cover. My guess is these complaints are coming from the MP people who keep unintentionally sticking to cover. I do not want to play in an arena with no cover that just depends on my hoping all about to dodge all the time. I want to evaluate a battlefield for tactically advantageous locations where I cannot be flanked and where I cannot be shot. Instead, all I hear is people clamoring for twitchy, jumpy type games.

 

And just because the United States has become a free-fire zone where you are not safe anywhere you go, I much preferred running around the Citadel in ME3 not loaded down with weapons and dragging along a couple of squad mates.

[SardaukarElite]

I think Gears of War's direct influence on games has mostly passed (thankfully). The Last of Us and Tomb Rebooter experimented with more automatic cover systems which didn't rely so much on the obvious waist high blocks and let you keep moving in a fight.

[KaiserShep]

Being able to whip out the guns at any time is nice in principle, but largely unsatisfying overall, because it really made no difference with NPC's. I can fire my weapon everywhere and lob grenades at everything on the Presidium, but absolutely nothing happens. If random colonists can back off or flee, then heck yeah. 

[Big Bad]

 Vanguard Shep:

 

"Cover?  Who the f*ck uses cover?" 

Sidenote:  anybody have a femshep version of this ME meme? 

[Kevinc62]

I'd be neat. I'm not to fond of the cover mechanics (it got really old on insanity mode) but I'm not up to date with modern shooter. Have they finally come up with a better TPS system?

[Former_Fiend]

I've been fairly vocal that I'd like to see them move away from the formula of three people shooting their ways down hallways of waist high cover. 

 

Ideally I would like a complete overhaul of the combat system. I'd like the battlefield to open up, allow us to pick from multiple approaches. Let us set up flanking maneuvers, set traps and ambushes, us a greater degree of stealth than just the tactical cloak. Actually be able to snipe from a real distance and have our choice of targets affect the battle, whether we take out sentries or officers or what not.  

[CHRrOME]

Agreed. BW was so proud of the map layouts having cover everywhere that they ended up looking more like shooting galleries rather than realistic maps. Yes you could argue that a true soldier will find cover anywhere, but it always felt like you could just move from cover to cover until the fight was done.

They need to balance things out a little bit more and make it more realistic and less "cover-easy"

 

Ideally I would like a complete overhaul of the combat system. I'd like the battlefield to open up, allow us to pick from multiple approaches. Let us set up flanking maneuvers, set traps and ambushes, us a greater degree of stealth than just the tactical cloak. Actually be able to snipe from a real distance and have our choice of targets affect the battle, whether we take out sentries or officers or what not.  

 

This, basically.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I think Gears of War's direct influence on games has mostly passed (thankfully). The Last of Us and Tomb Rebooter experimented with more automatic cover systems which didn't rely so much on the obvious waist high blocks and let you keep moving in a fight.

Tomb Raider, I loved that game. My GOTY for that year.

[Mdizzletr0n]

I've been fairly vocal that I'd like to see them move away from the formula of three people shooting their ways down hallways of waist high cover. 
 
Ideally I would like a complete overhaul of the combat system. I'd like the battlefield to open up, allow us to pick from multiple approaches. Let us set up flanking maneuvers, set traps and ambushes, us a greater degree of stealth than just the tactical cloak. Actually be able to snipe from a real distance and have our choice of targets affect the battle, whether we take out sentries or officers or what not.

Cosign

[Zekka]

I'd like that return too. I'd also like if the AI in generalwas more reactive. If I pulled a pistol in the citadel then I expect people and authorities to react to it.

This is why I say Bioware should stop being so influenced by gears of war. It doesn't work well with a game like mass effect that could do so much more. I'm not sure why people on BSN are still content with ME playing like a standard 3rd person shooter.

[AtreiyaN7]

Just going to point out that people use cover in real life to avoid getting shot. Though I have no love for maps that are basically corridors with a ton of crates that are obviously there solely for the purposes of providing cover and can understand the criticism of those kinds of layouts, I still prefer ME2 and ME3 for the more fluid combat over ME1. With the new Frostbite engine, perhaps they'll be able to do larger maps that have more naturalistic cover placement instead of having it be unrealistic and obvious.

I'm afraid that I am now going to have to bring MGSV up again, and that's because I have found that cover placement in MGSV is more natural and realistic than what you might have found in ME2 or ME3 (it's not corridor and crates-ville, basically). You have naturally placed rocks, ancient ruins that seem to belong where they are as opposed to being there just to provide a broken column for you to hide behind, buildings you can hide inside/behind/on top of, bridges and vehicles to hide under, pipes to hide in, etc.

And I prefer some level of realism in my combat - which means I will almost never just stand right out in the open and let me enemies fill me full of holes a la ME1. You're looking for a certain amount of unpredictability and danger, OP? Ambushes a la Saren's thugs? That's kind of what you get in MGSV - make a single mistake, and you can suddenly have hell raining down on you and be scrambling for your life - without ten billion crates to hide behind.

[Vapaa]

Agreed. BW was so proud of the map layouts having cover everywhere that they ended up looking more like shooting galleries rather than realistic maps.

 

Ended up ?

If one ME game ever featured unrealistic maps, it was ME1, ME1 was also as full of waist-high cover or convenietly placed storage containers as ME2 and ME3.

 

Sure on some rare occasions, combat broke in otherwise safe areas, it was a nice touch, but it was still scripted and there wasn't random fights.

[Mirrman70]

I am pretty sure that most of the areas with gunfights had cover available in ME1... maybe not always waist high but still... there was cover. whats the point of having a cover system if it doesn't get used?

[mybudgee]

I have a more general, yet possibly incendiary question; How can we be relatively certain, as Biower fans, that the writing/production value will not continue to decrease (or become more diluted) in this next Mass Effect game?

 

I have been a fan of the devs/writers/artists for a long time, about a decade. I stood by Biower until the broken state of ME3 (No, I am not referring to the ending). I was a fervent loyalist. I want this game to be a return to the freedom & exploration of ME1, with the dramatic balance of ME2. I want less ridiculous "cookie-cutter" filler, as in DAII, and no broken promises or pandering as we saw in DA3. I want to be excited about gaming again.

 

Please Biower. I want to end my personal boycott. I am really not asking that much. Just maybe, treat me like an adult... ?

[marcelo caldas]

I don't have much to add but agree with the general point that anything that makes MEA less "gamey" is probably a good thing. I'm not a huge fan of the cover mechanic (particularly when its thin but invulnerable glass cover) so I'd be happy if that got changed too.

Except boss fights

[KrrKs]

I'm all for the ability to holster or draw my weapon at will.

I'm also for less differentiation between combat and non combat areas -ME3 nearly did this again on missions like Menae or Sur'kesh.

 

About the waist high cover: Completely removing this would be a mistake, imo. Doing this would probably result in more overpowered Videogamey chars than ever before in ME.

Including the cover better into the location's function/terrain is the better way to go, I believe. And to be honest ME3 already did that way better than the other 2 titles before.

[KaiserShep]

I'd like that return too. I'd also like if the AI in generalwas more reactive. If I pulled a pistol in the citadel then I expect people and authorities to react to it.

 

I guess one problem with this though is that it can sort of break the narrative. Like, in ME1, if the authorities were able to respond to Shepard being able to shoot up the Citadel, you'd get stripped of Spectre status at best, and kicked off the station. That pretty much ends the story right there. It's not like Fallout 3 where I can ruin my good standing with the town of Megaton. 

[Regan_Cousland]

I guess one problem with [realistic responses to inappropriate violence] is that [they can] sort of break the narrative. Like, in ME1, if the authorities were able to respond to Shepard being able to shoot up the Citadel, you'd get stripped of Spectre status at best, and kicked off the station. That pretty much ends the story right there. It's not like Fallout 3 where I can ruin my good standing with the town of Megaton. 

 

Very true. And that's why you shouldn't be able to shoot whoever you like. If you aim your weapon at an innocent civilian, your targeting reticle should fade to grey and your gun's trigger should become mysteriously unresponsive: a device many games use to prevent the player causing wanton slaughter.

But being able to draw your weapon in a peaceful, public area and provoking a purely superficial response sounds like a nice way to increase immersion. If, for example, you draw your rocket launcher in a shop and scope down on the poor salarian clerk, he could yell in horror and cover his face with his arm -- or perhaps cower beneath his counter. And nearby patrons could shout things like, "Are you insane, human?!" or "Put that thing away!" or "SECURITY!"

Maybe such actions could even have an impact on subsequent conversations with your traumatized victims. Perhaps the salarian clerk, although perfectly polite and helpful when you first entered the shop, will no longer serve you once you've pointed a gun at his head. Whenever you attempt to speak with him, he'll mutter, "My establishment doesn't cater to the trigger-happy or the insane. Kindly leave." Or perhaps he will still serve you, but begrudgingly.

P.S. Or maybe the salarian gives you a discount on all his wares because he's terrified and wants to appease you. lol

[Pasquale1234]

Including the cover better into the location's function/terrain is the better way to go, I believe. And to be honest ME3 already did that way better than the other 2 titles before.

The problem with that is that some things looked like cover nodes, but weren't, and vice-versa.

I got Shepard killed on more than one occasion trying to take cover behind something that looked like cover but wasn't. Also didn't know that cover was available in some places until I saw the squadmates taking cover there.

Maybe the FB3 physics can support natural terrain, etc., where characters can basically make their own cover, even if the level designers did not specifically designate something as cover. Maybe if they go back to ME1's simple "squat" mechanism instead of the "stick to cover" mechanism used in later games, we'd have the best of both worlds.

[Zekka]

I guess one problem with this though is that it can sort of break the narrative. Like, in ME1, if the authorities were able to respond to Shepard being able to shoot up the Citadel, you'd get stripped of Spectre status at best, and kicked off the station. That pretty much ends the story right there. It's not like Fallout 3 where I can ruin my good standing with the town of Megaton.

That's a fault of fallout 3 and this would be the consequence of your choice in ME:A