63 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

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

On the flip side, you'd have that turian merchant in the Citadel gun shop impressed with your equipment and he shows you the heavy weapon he keeps under the counter.

[KaiserShep]

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

I'm not clear as to why that would be a fault in Fallout 3. If I go around trying to fight people or break into their homes, it should cause the town and its mayor to be a bit hostile.

[holdenagincourt]

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.

 

I agree with this. Less differentiation is fine, though I don't think it adds much to the game as violence can take place in cutscenes if necessary. Also, I don't find it especially more enriching to have to shoot up a strip club without a loading screen as opposed to encountering one immediately before. I always found it odd that in ME1 over a dozen people are massacred in Chora's Den and ten minutes later it's back to party time as if nothing happened. ME2 and ME3 did a better job in terms of segregating chaos from static or story-progressed areas, which is not inherently worse than a mixed environment in my opinion.

 

And yeah, cover is pretty well-integrated in ME3 at least in the priority missions. The N7 missions...not quite so much. But the creative use of desks, potted plants, rock outcroppings and the like was very astute. I honestly think the convenient waist-high cover problem largely went away with ME2. Combat is great in ME3 and I definitely don't want the terrible cover mechanics of ME1 back in any capacity.

[KaiserShep]

I think what would really make cover better is if part of it can be destroyed. Like, if hiding behind a desk, anything on top of it may be shattered when fired upon.

[Golden_Persona]

Seriously, more GoW comparisons? Almost as bad as CoD comparisons.The chest-high walls being gamey because, big shock, it's a video game never bothered me. "Immersion-breaking" seems to be a phrase that has only become relevant after the ME trilogy finished off. That's one of the words I hear all the time. I swear it's become the new "lore-breaking".

 

ME3 fixed ME2's issue where conveniently chest-high cover was placed and spoiled when a battle would break out. Cover was found naturally through the environment, rather than just randomly placed metal barricades placed in uncanny locations. As far as I'm concerned the problem was already solved. Also the gameplay was more fluid in 3 and the classes were better designed. No class, not even Soldier, needs to rely on cover in ME3. The only issue was that holstering was taken out due to memory constraints.

 

Seems obvious with the ME1 planet exploring approach that the ability to holster and unholster your guns is back with a vengeance. Who knows what crazy alien wild-life will attack us at any moment. I fail to see the point of unholstering on a hub world though. NPCs never reacted and it was pointless. If we're talking about surprise attacks then it'd be much more effective if unholstering was impossible, but during situations where you're just monotounously walking to your destination you saw your character unholster all of a sudden. That quick burst of animation + being shot at would seriously wake up your battle senses.

[Ahglock]

While not always handled well I liked how the fight in choras den was handled in its aftermath. It fit the 80s sci fi vibe of shiny outside dystopian core.

[Joseph Warrick]

If you watch ME2 on youtube many times you can hear the dude saying "this looks like a fight room". It's obvious. But Shadow Broker started to work on the issue and ME3 was fine in terms of the design of the rooms. If MEA is like ME3 in this respect I'll like it. Just my opinion.

 

I didn't like the automatic pulling of the gun in fight areas in ME3. The forum said that was because the low memory of the consoles, so maybe the current generation won't limit the game in this way.

[Regan_Cousland]

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.

 

I liked your comment for this statement. I agree.

I think cover should remain an important part of combat. I certainly wouldn't get rid of it. But there has to be some sort of middle ground: a way that we can make use of naturally occurring cover like rocks and ruins and even our own Mako without having to "stick" to it. 

Likewise, we shouldn't be completely doomed if we pick a fight in the middle of a desert where there's no cover. Maybe we should have special abilities with long-ish cooldown periods that allow us to overcharge our kinetic barriers or biotic shields for a short time if we're completely exposed? Just an idea.

I've seen Metal Gear Solid 5, Tomb Raider and The Last of Us cited as games that employ good cover mechanics without relying on them absolutely. If there's some way to adapt those kinds of systems to a squad-based shooter/RPG I'd be interested to see it.

[Regan_Cousland]

On the flip side, you'd have that turian merchant in the Citadel gun shop impressed with your equipment and he shows you the heavy weapon he keeps under the counter.

 

Lol. Yeah, exactly. Little touches like that bring the world alive and BioWare used to be great at them.

Maybe a krogan trader gives you the cold shoulder and won't even speak to you until you draw on him. Then he gives a croaky laugh and shows you his inventory because you've proven you're not spineless. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Very true. And that's why you shouldn't be able to shoot whoever you like.

I think you should.

Imagine the pressure in a firefight if you were trying not just to win, but to avoid civilian casualties.

[Regan_Cousland]

I think you should [be able to kill innocents].

Imagine the pressure in a firefight if you were trying not just to win, but to avoid civilian casualties.

 

That would heighten the tension of certain firefights; it'd also make fights more strategically challenging if you're a paragon because you'd have to pick your targets carefully and avoid using area-of-effect weapons like rocket launchers and grenades to avoid causing collateral damage. And that sounds as awesome to me as I'm sure it does to you.

But, as the other poster said, being able to kill almost anyone is immersion-breaking in its own way. Even if you're not accountable to a higher authority, and you have free reign to be truly evil, some of your squadmates would walk out on you instantly or try to kill you if you started executing civilians to pass the time. lol

There are an insane amount of variables to consider when you give the player that level of freedom.

[Queen Skadi]

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.

 

Oh come now I think you might be being a little disingenuous here, while you could pull out your weapon anywhere on the citadel and fire it off willy nilly combat encounters on the citadel were very rare and heavily scripted and you always had a very good idea when and where a fight would break out before you even got to the location, this is to say nothing of how the crowd on the Citadel has no reaction to the crazy person with their gun out firing at nothing (probably because they are impervious to bullets) which kills any of the realism this feature might have had and makes things look even more ridiculous.

[Zekka]

I'm not clear as to why that would be a fault in Fallout 3. If I go around trying to fight people or break into their homes, it should cause the town and its mayor to be a bit hostile.

Fallout 3 only gave you a hit to your good/bad meter akin to what the current mass effect games do. There should have been bigger consequences for wiping a whole town

[Regan_Cousland]

I'd just like to clarify -- for those who have gotten a little grinchy with me on the topic -- that "waist-high cover" doesn't offend me in any way.

 

I'm good friends with waist-high cover! It's much more useful than knee-high cover and not nearly as oppressive as head-high cover. 

I only drew attention to "waist-high cover" in the thread's title because it was the most catchy thing I could think to write. lol

The gist of my post is that I'd like BioWare to find a way to integrate combat into parts of the game that aren't pre-designated shooting galleries.

ME1 didn't do this perfectly (it is an older game, after all), but it tried, and I appreciated it. I think Andromeda could revive the idea and improve upon it.
 

[Zekka]

That would heighten the tension of certain firefights; it'd also make fights more strategically challenging if you're a paragon because you'd have to pick your targets carefully and avoid using area-of-effect weapons like rocket launchers and grenades to avoid causing collateral damage. And that sounds as awesome to me as I'm sure it does to you.

But, as the other poster said, being able to kill almost anyone is immersion-breaking in its own way. Even if you're not accountable to a higher authority, and you have free reign to be truly evil, some of your squadmates would walk out on you instantly or try to kill you if you started executing civilians to pass the time. lol

There are an insane amount of variables to consider when you give the player that level of freedom.

I don't see what's wrong with it. If you mess up and kill civilians then it's your fault.
It will depend on how the game wants to handle it's consequence system. I think fallout new vegas is a recent game that did this quite well by only making 2 characters in the whole game invincible. There's nothing inherently wrong with squadmates leaving you as a consequence. Bioware has done it before.

[Queen Skadi]

I'd just like to clarify -- for those who have gotten a little grinchy with me on the topic -- that "waist-high cover" doesn't offend me in any way.

 

I'm good friends with waist-high cover! It's much more useful than knee-high cover and not nearly as oppressive as head-high cover. 

I only drew attention to "waist-high cover" in the thread's title because it was the most catchy thing I could think to write. lol

The gist of my post is that I'd like BioWare to find a way to integrate combat into parts of the game that aren't pre-designated shooting galleries.

ME1 didn't do this perfectly (it is an older game, after all), but it tried, and I appreciated it. I think Andromeda could revive the idea and improve upon it.
 

 

Well technically if you were a soldier with a certain skill (can't remember exactly what it was, might have been immunity) you did not actually need cover as you were virtually invulnerable.

[Regan_Cousland]

 I don't see what's wrong with [being able to kill civilians]. If you mess up and kill civilians then it's your fault.

It will depend on how the game wants to handle its consequence system. I think fallout new vegas is a recent game that did this quite well by only making 2 characters in the whole game invincible.

There's nothing inherently wrong with squadmates leaving you as a consequence. Bioware has done it before.

 

There isn't anything wrong with squadmates leaving you; not at all. But leaving you over something so trivial (in narrative terms) as shooting a random NPC in the head? Would gamers accept that?

And how would the AI be able to distinguish if you shot someone in the head intentionally or killed them accidentally in a firefight?

I can picture it now ...

Garrus 2.0: "You're a monster! You killed that civilian for no reason. I'm outta here. And I want my holo-vid collection returned immediately."

Pathfinder: "No, wait, WAIT! I shot him accidentally. There was a hanar bounty hunter with four guns aimed at us. You were in the firefight, too! Don't you remember? I regret what happened but I'm not a cold-blooded murderer."

Garrus 2.0: "How can you say that? This is the fifth damn time this has happened! You're either a monster or a terrible shot."

Pathfinder: "I'm a terrible shot. I swear."

Garrus 2.0: "Well Grunt 2.0 told me that you shot an old lady in the head while nobody was around. Explain that."

Pathfinder: "There was an assassin! He was stealth-cloaked. He used the old lady as a human shield."

*Garrus 2.0 blank stare.*

 

Pathfinder: "Fiiine. I'll get your holo-vid collection."

I don't really see BioWare going into that amount of detail. I'd love them to, but I don't see it. lol

 

[AlanC9]

So it's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that it isn't worth the zots to do right?

[Sylvius the Mad]

That would heighten the tension of certain firefights; it'd also make fights more strategically challenging if you're a paragon because you'd have to pick your targets carefully and avoid using area-of-effect weapons like rocket launchers and grenades to avoid causing collateral damage. And that sounds as awesome to me as I'm sure it does to you.

But, as the other poster said, being able to kill almost anyone is immersion-breaking in its own way. Even if you're not accountable to a higher authority, and you have free reign to be truly evil, some of your squadmates would walk out on you instantly or try to kill you if you started executing civilians to pass the time. lol

There are an insane amount of variables to consider when you give the player that level of freedom.

That should be the most important part of RPG development.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So it's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that it isn't worth the zots to do right?

Ideally, the game would react appropriately.

But if that costs too many zots, I'd rather be able to do the thing and have the game ignore it than not be able to do the thing.

We haven't been able to attack non-combatants in a BioWare game since BG2.

[KaiserShep]

Ideally, the game would react appropriately.
But if that costs too many zots, I'd rather be able to do the thing and have the game ignore it than not be able to do the thing.
We haven't been able to attack non-combatants in a BioWare game since BG2.

That's not entirely true. We could murder Brother Genitivi, and technically, Mordin was a non-combatant in ME3, since he is unarmed and walking away. Granted, in Mordin's case it's a heavy story point. As for random civvies I guess not, but we could rob them and kill guards trying to stop our crime spree. The results of that are kind of meh, though.

[Regan_Cousland]

So it's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that it isn't worth the zots to do right?

 

What's a "zot"?

No, I don't think that being able to kill random NPCs is a bad idea, per se. I support almost anything that enriches the roleplaying experience and offers you the kind of freedom of choice you'd have in real life.

But, from a budgetary and a story perspective, being able to kill anyone in a BioWare game seems like it'd cause a multitude of problems.

It only works in Bethesda games because Bethesda games don't put a particularly strong emphasis on story, emotion, people or relationships. They cast you as a loner with a personal agenda -- the rest of the world be damned.

 

Whereas protagonists in BioWare games have -- or should have -- a much deeper connection to the world around them and to the people in it, therefore murdering civilians would, in a BioWare game, have far-reaching and complex repercussions that a Bethesda game wouldn't even feel the need to address.

[Mdizzletr0n]

That would heighten the tension of certain firefights; it'd also make fights more strategically challenging if you're a paragon because you'd have to pick your targets carefully and avoid using area-of-effect weapons like rocket launchers and grenades to avoid causing collateral damage. And that sounds as awesome to me as I'm sure it does to you.

But, as the other poster said, being able to kill almost anyone is immersion-breaking in its own way. Even if you're not accountable to a higher authority, and you have free reign to be truly evil, some of your squadmates would walk out on you instantly or try to kill you if you started executing civilians to pass the time. lol

There are an insane amount of variables to consider when you give the player that level of freedom.

To be fair, there wasn't much you were accountable for in the first place.

But I agree that if you could injure civilians and/or their property, whether purposely or not, there should be a level of accountability it ME:A. Whether by authority, team/shipmates, or civilians (hopefully all of the above). Not by everyone though, there should always be some sick bastards that applaud you and may even gain more respect for you. Lol

[Enigmatick]

Funnily enough this was one of the instant positives of ME going open world.

[AlanC9]

What's a "zot"?

A "zot" is an abstract term for a unit of cost for making something -- I think it's a b-school thing, but David Gaider has popularized the term on the BSN. You don't want to just talk about dollars, because over the time allowed for a particular project money sometimes can't buy the particular thing you need in time to use it.