146 réponses à ce sujet

[Bruce M. Shepard]

And on top of the ME1 weapon system, I'd welcome back the limitation on weapons that can be used based on class. 

[Enigmatick]

And on top of the ME1 weapon system, I'd welcome back the limitation on weapons that can be used based on class. 

Slow down, friend.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

ME suffers from the CallofDirty pressure.

 

Ammo clips are good for CoD, so MEU must use them.

Knives are overpowered in CoD so Omniblade became able to slash through heavy plates of armor.

Grenades have an arc of throw in CoD so grenades must not fly directly to the target, stay glued at it and detonate in MEU.

Medigel make recover slowly the health in ME1 but in CoD it is almost instantly back just by breathing fresh air, so it must be the same in ME2.

 

 

So what's next? CoD don't need a solo game so MEU will throw it out the window?

 

I smell less and less SF here and more and more gun powder.

 

You say all that as if CoD invented those things.

[Pasquale1234]

When I say active management, I don't mean actively doing things in a menu; I mean actively making decisions in the midst of shooting.
 
Worrying about how much medigel you should use and when or which part of an enemy you should shoot is active management.

So is changing ammo loads.
 

This argument is becoming increasingly untenable. I understand that you don't come to Mass Effect for the shooting, but pretending that Mass Effect isn't a shooter or holding onto outdated marketing material and then proclaiming that Mass Effect has long since gone astray is absurd. Mass Effect isn't an RPG that "just so happens to use shooting mechanics." It hasn't been for a while and it arguably never was. I simply do not care if you think that's a bad thing.

What I do care about are good discussions that could actually benefit BioWare if they read them. Arguing on the basis that Mass Effect's TPS mechanics shouldn't exist or shouldn't be cared for isn't helpful to anyone, because BioWare clearly values those TPS elements.

That's quite an interesting interpretation of 2 short lines of text.
 

Calling BioWare's design decisions wrong especially after they've proven to be so effective is useless. I think the best way to get what we want is to work with BioWare's decisions and creative direction to create something that appeals to both TPS and RPG fans alike while respecting BioWare's creative control.

Good luck. I fully expect Bioware has already laid down the primary mechanics for ME:A, and managed without our help.
 

But how do you think that improves the game's mechanics? How does restricting "how much you can shoot over time," make the game better?

How does restricting ammo make the game better?
 

And how can you be so confident when you haven't played any of the shooters I've referenced?

I know that game synergy is much more than the sum of its parts, and that just because a specific mechanic works well in one game does not mean it would translate well into an entirely different game.
 

This has always been a problem, even with overheat. How would an ammo system make this worse?

I didn't say it would make it worse. I said it would make an ammo management system ineffective in meeting your presumed goal.
 

But fine, we can have squad ammunition management if you think it's absolutely necessary. That just means more to do in the inventory screen right?

It's only necessary if you expect the ammo management system to fulfill the stated purpose of manipulating difficulty vectors.
 

How? I've gone to great pains to describe exactly why I think ammunition promotes power usage, you could at least do me the same courtesy.

Fire weapon. While waiting for weapon to cooldown,
Use power. While waiting for powers to cooldown,
Fire weapon. While waiting for weapon to cooldown,
Use power. While waiting for powers to cooldown,
etc.

Oh, and you can also work going in and out of cover, re-positioning, meleeing, etc. into that rhythm as desired.

The weapon overheating system does not allow you to fire constantly. It requires cooldown periods (or weapon swapping). During those cooldown periods you can do nothing, re-position, melee, or use powers. Much more dynamic than constant pew-pew. (and more strategic imho.)
 

People who like to shoot a lot are presumably the kind of people who like shooters, and shooter fans would probably enjoy systems that are taken from their favorite games.

Maybe some of them are drawn to ME because it's different, and they appreciate the variety.

Mass Effect isn't any of the other games you keep naming. It has its own unique weapon technology that sets it apart from so many others. It also has its own approach to ammo types.

Ammo management would be something entirely new in ME. It would take a fair amount of effort to design and balance, work into the lore and codex, design levels and encounters around. Whether it would enhance play in any way is entirely subjective.

[Keitaro57]

You say all that as if CoD invented those things.

I said that because the first Mass Effect was more a RPG with shooter attributes and since ME2 it is more a shooter with RPG attributes.

At the beginning, we have SF weapons (sticky grenades, infinite ammor weapons...) and after 2 years we have a full reverse engineering to bring back weapons usefulness of the first world war... And I'm not talking about the heavy armor able to wisthand rockets, vaccum of space and extreme peak of heat but don't stand a second against a knife...

 

CoD and Battlefield are the most common shooter games (just look at the sale... sigh...) and EAware wanted to take the players from this fanbase by destroying the ME lore in the same time. I won't be surprised to find terrorist, massive explosive cinematic and corridor shooting in ME:A.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I said that because the first Mass Effect was more a RPG with shooter attributes and since ME2 it is more a shooter with RPG attributes.

At the beginning, we have SF weapons (sticky grenades, infinite ammor weapons...) and after 2 years we have a full reverse engineering to bring back weapons usefulness of the first world war... And I'm not talking about the heavy armor able to wisthand rockets, vaccum of space and extreme peak of heat but don't stand a second against a knife...

 

CoD and Battlefield are the most common shooter games (just look at the sale... sigh...) and EAware wanted to take the players from this fanbase by destroying the ME lore in the same time. I won't be surprised to find terrorist, massive explosive cinematic and corridor shooting in ME:A.

 

You will have to accept that Mass Effect is a shooter, because that is what it is. It is other things, as well. The fact that it is a shooter does not make it any less of an RPG. It is what it was always meant to be - a hybrid game mixing genres.

 

The fact that it adopted shooter conventions is unrelated to CoD. Call of Duty is a first person shooter with little in common with Mass Effect. Mass Effect adopted shooter conventions because it is a Third Person Shooter. Those conventions have been developed over a long time.

 

In spite of what you think, most of Mass Effect's conventions come from Tribes, which was one of the early influential games that started many of the conventions. Mass Effect has considerably more in common with Tribes than it does with Call of Duty.

[gothpunkboy89]

I'd rather see weapon cool down. But you could fast cool down weapon by replacing thermal clip. Kind of the way they should have done in the first place.

[themikefest]

The player wouldn't have to wait for the weapon to cooldown if he/she fires the weapon in short bursts to prevent it from overheating.

[Sidney]

The player wouldn't have to wait for the weapon to cooldown if he/she fires the weapon in short bursts to prevent it from overheating.

...of course sometimes one doesn't want to fire in short bursts. It's why this sort of mechanism is so lousy.

[Ahglock]

...of course sometimes one doesn't want to fire in short bursts. It's why this sort of mechanism is so lousy.

The player will just find a different way to suck if they get hung up on that making every mechanism lousy.

[Pasquale1234]

The player wouldn't have to wait for the weapon to cooldown if he/she fires the weapon in short bursts to prevent it from overheating.

That's what I've always done - with ME1 assault rifles, and the ones available in ME3.

That ME1's sniper rifles overheated on a single shot was a bit extreme imho - but that's something that can be easily tweaked to create better balance.

Quite a few of ME1's weapon mods also impacted overheating. Some would generate more heat, some less, all of which offered strategic considerations.

Thermal clip capacity extension mods - along with the ammo capacity skill evolutions - became pointless with all of the crates sprinkled throughout ME3's maps.

[Sylvius the Mad]

People who like to shoot a lot are presumably the kind of people who like shooters, and shooter fans would probably enjoy systems that are taken from their favorite games.

Maybe some of them are drawn to ME because it's different, and they appreciate the variety.

If they'd make the game moddable, maybe they could serve both groups.

[Synthetic Turian]

The player wouldn't have to wait for the weapon to cooldown if he/she fires the weapon in short bursts to prevent it from overheating.

 

Not if you're using certain sniper rifles. 1 shot = overheated.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You will have to accept that Mass Effect is a shooter, because that is what it is. It is other things, as well. The fact that it is a shooter does not make it any less of an RPG. It is what it was always meant to be - a hybrid game mixing genres.

We need definitions for this conversation to be meaningful.

Normally, I would have thought that a shooter's objective was to challenge the player, so that success of failure was based directly on the player's performance, moment to moment.

But if ME3 was a shooter, that can't be right, because ME3 didn't do that. ME3's difficulty was too low to challenge any competent shooter enthusiast, not to mention the ability to aim while paused, or even defeat encounters without shooting them at all.

This sort of tactical flexibility, plus the lack of reliance on player skill, are hallmarks of RPGs.

Multiplayer ME3 may well be a shooter. I wouldn't know (I wilk never try it). But SP ME3 doesn't seem to be.

[Pasquale1234]

If they'd make the game moddable, maybe they could serve both groups.

In order for that to be a satisfactory solution, those mods would need to be available on all platforms.

I understand that PC players enjoy great utility from the mods they install, but PC seems to be the platform with the smallest number of sales.

[Il Divo]

I said that because the first Mass Effect was more a RPG with shooter attributes and since ME2 it is more a shooter with RPG attributes.

At the beginning, we have SF weapons (sticky grenades, infinite ammor weapons...) and after 2 years we have a full reverse engineering to bring back weapons usefulness of the first world war... And I'm not talking about the heavy armor able to wisthand rockets, vaccum of space and extreme peak of heat but don't stand a second against a knife...

 

CoD and Battlefield are the most common shooter games (just look at the sale... sigh...) and EAware wanted to take the players from this fanbase by destroying the ME lore in the same time. I won't be surprised to find terrorist, massive explosive cinematic and corridor shooting in ME:A.

 

Considering ME1 was able to destroy its own lore within the context of a single game, I wouldn't put too much stock in the switch to an ammo system.

 

In general, I'd be surprised if Bioware cares about their own codex anywhere near to the same extent that fans here on the forums seem to.
 

[Pasquale1234]

We need definitions for this conversation to be meaningful.

Normally, I would have thought that a shooter's objective was to challenge the player, so that success of failure was based directly on the player's performance, moment to moment.

But if ME3 was a shooter, that can't be right, because ME3 didn't do that. ME3's difficulty was too low to challenge any competent shooter enthusiast, not to mention the ability to aim while paused, or even defeat encounters without shooting them at all.

This sort of tactical flexibility, plus the lack of reliance on player skill, are hallmarks of RPGs.

Multiplayer ME3 may well be a shooter. I wouldn't know (I wilk never try it). But SP ME3 doesn't seem to be.

I believe ME1 relied on Shepard's skill (at least) as much as the player's. It offered specific weapon skills (Pistols, Sniper Rifles, etc.) that would improve Shepard's (as well as the squadmates') skills with those weapons when the player invested skill points in them. It also offered a variety of omni-tools and biotic amps that could enhance the squad's other powers.

But since you can easily play all of the games without firing a single shot, it's pretty hard for me to view them as shooters per se. Shooting is one of several skills that can be used to defeat enemies.

[themikefest]

Not if you're using certain sniper rifles. 1 shot = overheated.

 None of the sniper rifles had the capability of firing in a short burst.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In order for that to be a satisfactory solution, those mods would need to be available on all platforms.

I understand that PC players enjoy great utility from the mods they install, but PC seems to be the platform with the smallest number of sales.

Console users should complain to console manufacturers about that.

A console is a computer. It can run mods. They just make it really hard to do.

[Wulfram]

Not if you're using certain sniper rifles. 1 shot = overheated.

I'm pretty sure that only happened if you used mods that increased heat.

[afgncaap7]

I was hoping they would combine both types in ME3. Functionally unlimited ammo, but limited thermal clips if you couldn't afford to wait on a cooldown at that moment.

[Synthetic Turian]

 None of the sniper rifles had the capability of firing in a short burst.

 

Precisely.