289 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're actually insisting that Mass Effect is a pure RPG while saying that it's the "right direction" for them to basically remove anything you feel interferes with your specific definition of the word.

That's mostly your inference, not things I actually said.

I find slapping a label on something and saying "You must be exactly like this" to just be stupid. Mass Effect doesn't need to "be a RPG" or "be a cover based shooter".

But it does need to satisfy certain conditions of it is to earn certain labels.

Mass Effect needs to be Mass Effect. What it needs to be is true to the originals: A game with a decent story, good characters, branching story paths, and cover based shooting that blends powers and gunplay.

The action elements make Mass Effect what it is just as much as the roleplaying parts. Not every part of a game needs to appeal to you specifically.

Then it needs pause-to-aim. That's certainly one of the series' defining features.

[Cyonan]

That's mostly your inference, not things I actually said.

 

Yeah, about that...

 

I fully support this suggestion. Anything that makes combat more free-form and a less tightly controlled experience is a step in the right direction.

 

I used "right direction" specifically because those were your own words. You straight up said to removing hard cover is the right direction to go, later on in the thread saying you didn't like hard cover because of the fact that you can sprint into cover rather than pushing a button specifically for cover which went against the pure RPG approach.

 

But it does need to satisfy certain conditions of it is to earn certain labels.

 

Yeah, but why should BioWare care if it "earns" the RPG label as defined by you or anybody else? Genres are just labels we assign to games so that we can give people a general idea as to what a game is like with a single word. It's not something we try to force on developers to restrict what they should and shouldn't do with their game design.

 

You keep saying "if Mass Effect wants a pure roleplaying approach", but why should it want to do that? It's never tried to actually be that.

 

Then it needs pause-to-aim. That's certainly one of the series' defining features.

 

I'm not against removing it even though I disagree about it being a series defining feature.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah, about that...


I used "right direction" specifically because those were your own words. You straight up said to removing hard cover is the right direction to go, later on in the thread saying you didn't like hard cover because of the fact that you can sprint into cover rather than pushing a button specifically for cover which went against the pure RPG approach.

That wasn't specifically a roleplaying issue, though. Being funneled down a specific corridor so that I can be presented with specific enemies in a specific order with specific cover to hide behind is less interesting combat. I much prefer gameplay in which I get to make decisions (which does provide more room for roleplaying, but that's tangential to the issue), and tightly controlled combat encouters (which have been prevalent throughout ME2 and ME3 - and I understand are typical of the cover based shooter genre - don't really do that.

ME1 had hard cover, but somehow managed not to have those tightly controlled encounters all the time, just one of many reasons why I think it was the best in the series.

If you'll note my phrasing, I wasn't saying that removing cover was a step in the right direction. I said that anything that discourages that rigid encounter design was a step in the right direction. If removing hard cover doesn't do that, then it wouldn't qualify.

Yeah, but why should BioWare care if it "earns" the RPG label as defined by you or anybody else?

I have no reason to believe they do. You might also note that they're not here; BioWare is not my intended audience.

Genres are just labels we assign to games so that we can give people a general idea as to what a game is like with a single word.

And the misuse of the label RPG is making that label far less useful at doing that one thing you say it's for.

You keep saying "if Mass Effect wants a pure roleplaying approach", but why should it want to do that?

That's not how conditional statements work. You're also implicitly denying the is/ought problem.

It's never tried to actually be that.

I've noticed. I would have a much less steep hill to climb if it had.

I'm not against removing it even though I disagree about it being a series defining feature.

It's been in all three games, and it's something other games of its sort don't have. I can think of no better definition of "series defining". What definition are you using?

Other features that meet my standard include the setting, the voiced protagonist, Shepard, and the Paragon/Renegade scale (though not any particular definition for those terms). Also hard cover, I suppose, though the level design of ME1 relied on it far less than that the other two games.

I'm going to disagree with you on the branching storyline, though. ME3 doesn't have branches. It has a few hubs where you can make decisions, but they don't affect the future path of the game at all (I think ME3 was a relentlessly bad game, though, so I might be misremembering).

[Cyonan]

That wasn't specifically a roleplaying issue, though. Being funneled down a specific corridor so that I can be presented with specific enemies in a specific order with specific cover to hide behind is less interesting combat. I much prefer gameplay in which I get to make decisions (which does provide more room for roleplaying, but that's tangential to the issue), and tightly controlled combat encouters (which have been prevalent throughout ME2 and ME3 - and I understand are typical of the cover based shooter genre - don't really do that.

ME1 had hard cover, but somehow managed not to have those tightly controlled encounters all the time, just one of many reasons why I think it was the best in the series.

If you'll note my phrasing, I wasn't saying that removing cover was a step in the right direction. I said that anything that discourages that rigid encounter design was a step in the right direction. If removing hard cover doesn't do that, then it wouldn't qualify.

 

Fair enough, although I'd say that the hard cover in ME1 didn't make for half way decent real time combat. It was actually one of the bigger issues holding back the game from having good cover based shooter mechanics. Taking cover in real time was simply slow and clunky, which meant I never really wanted to actually do it.

 

I have no reason to believe they do. You might also note that they're not here; BioWare is not my intended audience.

 

And the misuse of the label RPG is making that label far less useful at doing that one thing you say it's for.

 

BioWare is the one developing the game so one would think they are the ones you want to convince, but even if your intended audience are the ones who are on the forums the question remains in a slightly altered format: Why should I care if the game "earns" your definition of a label?

 

The label RPG already barely has any use because I disagree with your definition of it, and have yet to see any definition that the majority of the BSN can agree on. Since there isn't a universally agreed upon definition of the term and attempting to have a discussion to create one has never gotten us anywhere then it seems that the label already has no real meaning.

 

That's not how conditional statements work. You're also implicitly denying the is/ought problem.

 

I've noticed. I would have a much less steep hill to climb if it had.

 

If the statement is not made to attempt to convince me that Mass Effect ought to take the pure RPG route then you've made a completely pointless statement, because you already know I don't believe Mass Effect is trying to take your approach to pure RPG and you've just noted that you've noticed it's not trying as well.

 

The only way to make me think that information is relevant to the discussion is to first convince me that Mass Effect should be trying to strive for your pure RPG approach. If you aren't trying to convince me of that then the question instead becomes: What's the point in noting these things?

 

However if the statement is used to try and convince me the question remains: Why should it strive for that?

 

It's been in all three games, and it's something other games of its sort don't have. I can think of no better definition of "series defining". What definition are you using?

Other features that meet my standard include the setting, the voiced protagonist, Shepard, and the Paragon/Renegade scale (though not any particular definition for those terms). Also hard cover, I suppose, though the level design of ME1 relied on it far less than that the other two games.

I'm going to disagree with you on the branching storyline, though. ME3 doesn't have branches. It has a few hubs where you can make decisions, but they don't affect the future path of the game at all (I think ME3 was a relentlessly bad game, though, so I might be misremembering).

 

Mass Effect is a bit of a weird case because there really isn't "other games of its sort". At least not that I'm aware of.

 

Series defining as a term is also going to be one of those terms that can get subjective for some of the smaller points. Unfortunately opinion frequently gets in the way of create a solid definition of things.

 

My general thinking is that real time with pause isn't really a unique feature to games, or even to BioWare games. The pause to aim system is just a byproduct of the real unique feature here: Attempting to find a balance between RPG and Cover Based Shooter.

 

The general way it functions also doesn't help it, because it's not something that can exactly work very well with full auto weapons. At some point you're going to have to manually track a moving target at which point you're not using pause to aim anymore. If a mechanic as basic as aiming a gun doesn't work with every weapon type then I don't even really want to call it a feature, much less a series defining one.

 

Branching storyline was a poor choice of words. Branching dialogue would have been the more correct term, as the dialogue does branch off in different directions a lot of the times even while the story doesn't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fair enough, although I'd say that the hard cover in ME1 didn't make for half way decent real time combat. It was actually one of the bigger issues holding back the game from having good cover based shooter mechanics. Taking cover in real time was simply slow and clunky, which meant I never really wanted to actually do it.

I still think it's the best game in the series (and it's not close).

BioWare is the one developing the game so one would think they are the ones you want to convince, but even if your intended audience are the ones who are on the forums the question remains in a slightly altered format: Why should I care if the game "earns" your definition of a label?

The label RPG already barely has any use because I disagree with your definition of it, and have yet to see any definition that the majority of the BSN can agree on. Since there isn't a universally agreed upon definition of the term and attempting to have a discussion to create one has never gotten us anywhere then it seems that the label already has no real meaning.

If the statement is not made to attempt to convince me that Mass Effect ought to take the pure RPG route then you've made a completely pointless statement, because you already know I don't believe Mass Effect is trying to take your approach to pure RPG and you've just noted that you've noticed it's not trying as well.

The only way to make me think that information is relevant to the discussion is to first convince me that Mass Effect should be trying to strive for your pure RPG approach. If you aren't trying to convince me of that then the question instead becomes: What's the point in noting these things?

I'm trying to move the margins of public opinion, not any specific person's opinion. And I'm trying to increase the PR cost of non-RPG design choices.

However if the statement is used to try and convince me the question remains: Why should it strive for that?

I leave that question for the reader to decide.

I try to illustrate the other problems created by the features that inhibit roleplaying (like the incoherence of the setting or the narrative) in the hopes that I can increase opposition to those features for any reason.

Mass Effect is a bit of a weird case because there really isn't "other games of its sort". At least not that I'm aware of.

I don't think Mass Effect is that different from Jade Empire. Sure, the combat is different, but that's just cut&paste from a different genre (with a clever innovation to remove the mandatory action element), and the protagonist is voiced, but that isn't that big a difference with a pre-written character and a linear story.

I have generally thought that BioWare has the best RPG combat in the business (except Jade Empire), and ME marks the best example I've seen of shooter combat compatible with roleplaying.

Series defining as a term is also going to be one of those terms that can get subjective for some of the smaller points. Unfortunately opinion frequently gets in the way of create a solid definition of things.

Subjective definitions are not definitions. They are meaningless.

My general thinking is that real time with pause isn't really a unique feature to games, or even to BioWare games. The pause to aim system is just a byproduct of the real unique feature here: Attempting to find a balance between RPG and Cover Based Shooter.

BioWare pioneered the real-time-with-pause RPG combat. I see Mass Effect as an extension/refinement of that.

The general way it functions also doesn't help it, because it's not something that can exactly work very well with full auto weapons. At some point you're going to have to manually track a moving target at which point you're not using pause to aim anymore. If a mechanic as basic as aiming a gun doesn't work with every weapon type then I don't even really want to call it a feature, much less a series defining one.

Full auto weapons are optional. And either way, pause-to-aim is still valuable for locating opponents. The final battle in ME1 is an excellent example of this.

Branching storyline was a poor choice of words. Branching dialogue would have been the more correct term, as the dialogue does branch off in different directions a lot of the times even while the story doesn't.

Here's hoping that MEA incorporates the paraphrase improvements from DAI so that we actually have some control over what the protagonist is saying.

[DarthLaxian]

And here I thought that I'd already seen the stupidest threads BSN had to offer.

 

You may disagree (I do to - the squad based combat IMHO needs the cover system (so you can set up combos etc.)), but you don't have to be a damned dick about it!

 

Note: I would love to be able to survive out of cover for more than a second though (without having to pop barrier, tech-armor etc.) to line up shots etc.!

 

greetings LAX

[o Ventus]

And become Destiny? NO THANK U

You don't play Destiny in third-person. Even if you did, Destiny and ME play nothing alike aside from basic shooting.

[Cyonan]

I'm trying to move the margins of public opinion, not any specific person's opinion. And I'm trying to increase the PR cost of non-RPG design choices.
I leave that question for the reader to decide.

I try to illustrate the other problems created by the features that inhibit roleplaying (like the incoherence of the setting or the narrative) in the hopes that I can increase opposition to those features for any reason.

 

But you aren't illustrating problems created by things that inhibit roleplaying, you're simply pointing out where they could make the game more like the RPG you envision.

 

The general way swaying public opinion works is to make arguments as to why your approach would result in a more enjoyable game than the approach the rest of us currently want. We don't all agree on the approach and all of us have something different in mind for what we want out of ME:A.

 

When you say sprinting into hard cover hinders RP because your character should not take action without direct input to do so, you're telling me how to make the game more like what you want and why it's not like what you want.

 

You aren't however, illustrating a problem being created by this scenario because you have not yet convinced me that things which hinder your idea of RP is a problem.

 

I also know you mean the forums as a whole, I simply refer to myself because I can only speak for myself when I say that.

 

Subjective definitions are not definitions. They are meaningless.

 

 That's too bad. Not every word is going to be cleanly defined and not everybody is going to agree on a term meaning the same thing.

 

We tend to get by on people understanding the general idea of what we mean for these terms.

 

BioWare pioneered the real-time-with-pause RPG combat. I see Mass Effect as an extension/refinement of that.
Full auto weapons are optional. And either way, pause-to-aim is still valuable for locating opponents. The final battle in ME1 is an excellent example of this.

 

BioWare may have pioneered it, but it's not really a unique feature of an individual game of theirs anymore. Maybe a trademark of a BioWare game, but not something specific to Mass Effect.

 

Being optional changes nothing. If you're going to have a system as fundamental as aiming a weapon, you make it functional with every weapon type. The fact that it's not makes me want to say either it's not a feature, or else a very badly designed feature.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But you aren't illustrating problems created by things that inhibit roleplaying, you're simply pointing out where they could make the game more like the RPG you envision.

An incoherent setting isn't a problem? The character doing things you specifically want her not to do isn't a problem?

If that's the case, then I have zero understanding of why you play these games or how you derive enjoyment from them. From my point of view, you're basically a space alien.

The general way swaying public opinion works is to make arguments as to why your approach would result in a more enjoyable game than the approach the rest of us currently want. We don't all agree on the approach and all of us have something different in mind for what we want out of ME:A.

You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince peolle generally. Just the margins. And based on the responses I've seen, I succeed.

By moving the margins, I move the median. BioWare aims at the median.

When you say sprinting into hard cover hinders RP because your character should not take action without direct input to do so, you're telling me how to make the game more like what you want and why it's not like what you want.

Does having the character take cover when you don't want him to not irritate you? I expect the RP reason is but a small part of the problem with overmapped buttons, but it is a problem.

I also find it frustrating to have buttons do different things unpredictably, but I don't see how my frustration would be at all relevant to anyone who isn't me. I make the RP argument because I expect it to be more broadly applicable than "this isn't fun".

You aren't however, illustrating a problem being created by this scenario because you have not yet convinced me that things which hinder your idea of RP is a problem.

Such a thing is never possible. I can't make you care about something you don't already care about. No one can.

Instead, I find things you might already care about and try to tie them to the features I don't like.

That's too bad. Not every word is going to be cleanly defined and not everybody is going to agree on a term meaning the same thing.

Then the transfer if information is impossible.

We tend to get by on people understanding the general idea of what we mean for these terms.

People might try to do that, but in my experience they mostly fail.

BioWare may have pioneered it, but it's not really a unique feature of an individual game of theirs anymore. Maybe a trademark of a BioWare game, but not something specific to Mass Effect.

Then its removal would make MEA no longer a BioWare game.

Being optional changes nothing. If you're going to have a system as fundamental as aiming a weapon, you make it functional with every weapon type. The fact that it's not makes me want to say either it's not a feature, or else a very badly designed feature.

The ability to locate and select targets whole paused works very well. We can't fire while paused (which I did actually complain about with ME1), but that's not something I'm saying we can do.

It would be nice to be able to scope while paused (or pause while scoped), and I still would like to be able to trigger weapons while paused the way we already can with class abilities, but those are longshots so I don't spend much time on those topics. I'd similarly like a return to ME1's stat-driven accuracy cone, and a full-scale abandonment of the voiced protagonist, but I'm not getting those either.

I have a better shot at move-to-point commands or tactical full-party control (both of which I would also like).

[Cyonan]

An incoherent setting isn't a problem? The character doing things you specifically want her not to do isn't a problem?

If that's the case, then I have zero understanding of why you play these games or how you derive enjoyment from them. From my point of view, you're basically a space alien.
You misunderstand. I'm not trying to convince peolle generally. Just the margins. And based on the responses I've seen, I succeed.

 

Lore should never trump good gameplay mechanics when the two come into conflict and sprinting into cover is actually a smooth way of dealing with a transition between the two.

 

I agree that the story and characters should be coherent, but take Medi-Gel for example. It's basically just a bunch of medicines stuffed into a gel form, so it doesn't actually rapidly heal bullet wounds or revive people who have fallen down like it does in gameplay. Obviously once somebody dies, they also don't just stand up after combat is done.

 

However i'm going to disagree that taking away the medi-gel heal and making death permanent would be a good direction for the game to go in.

 

Does having the character take cover when you don't want him to not irritate you? I expect the RP reason is but a small part of the problem with overmapped buttons, but it is a problem.

I also find it frustrating to have buttons do different things unpredictably, but I don't see how my frustration would be at all relevant to anyone who isn't me. I make the RP argument because I expect it to be more broadly applicable than "this isn't fun"

 

I think that the overmapped button should be changed largely because of interact and take cover being the same thing. You can be aiming at an ally to revive and take cover instead.

 

When I'm sprinting at a piece of cover however, I generally do so because I want to take cover behind it or because I plan to vault over it which can be done with another tap of the spacebar.

 

Such a thing is never possible. I can't make you care about something you don't already care about. No one can.

Instead, I find things you might already care about and try to tie them to the features I don't like.

 

Of course it's possible. I'm a Human, which means that I am perfectly capable of changing my opinion when presented with an argument I find to be suitable.

 

Then the transfer if information is impossible.

 

People might try to do that, but in my experience they mostly fail.

 

It's easily possible and I do it frequently. That's why I can have discussions with other people about RPGs despite the fact that I've noted the BSN doesn't agree on a single definition.

 

Then its removal would make MEA no longer a BioWare game.

 

Yes, removing real time with pause combat is taking away a core feature of what makes a BioWare game a BioWare game. I've never even said they should remove it.

 

The ability to locate and select targets whole paused works very well. We can't fire while paused (which I did actually complain about with ME1), but that's not something I'm saying we can do.

It would be nice to be able to scope while paused (or pause while scoped), and I still would like to be able to trigger weapons while paused the way we already can with class abilities, but those are longshots so I don't spend much time on those topics. I'd similarly like a return to ME1's stat-driven accuracy cone, and a full-scale abandonment of the voiced protagonist, but I'm not getting those either.

I have a better shot at move-to-point commands or tactical full-party control (both of which I would also like).

 

Locating and selecting targets isn't exactly aiming, though.

 

Given that full auto weapons requires consistent aim adjustments, it makes it not feasible to use the pause feature to aim with those weapons. Thus, the pause to aim system does not function for all weapons.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lore should never trump good gameplay mechanics when the two come into conflict and sprinting into cover is actually a smooth way of dealing with a transition between the two.

I agree that the story and characters should be coherent, but take Medi-Gel for example. It's basically just a bunch of medicines stuffed into a gel form, so it doesn't actually rapidly heal bullet wounds or revive people who have fallen down like it does in gameplay. Obviously once somebody dies, they also don't just stand up after combat is done.

However i'm going to disagree that taking away the medi-gel heal and making death permanent would be a good direction for the game to go in.

I would disagree, but more importantly, I'd like to point out that you also didn't offer any reason for someone to share your opinion.

I also think you offered a bit of a straw man, since there are possible lore-consistent changes that wouldn't change gameplay that much.

Medi-gel could contain some future tech that actually does do the things you describe. Or we could replace the health bar with a combination of regenerating armour and shields and get the same gameplay without the lore-breaking healing.

And I think you've mislabeled incapacitation as death. Death, obviously, can't be healed.

I think that the overmapped button should be changed largely because of interact and take cover being the same thing. You can be aiming at an ally to revive and take cover instead.

When I'm sprinting at a piece of cover however, I generally do so because I want to take cover behind it or because I plan to vault over it which can be done with another tap of the spacebar.

I found the timing on that really tricky, which is a problem if Shepard is supposed to be dextrous. Much like with real-time aiming: why is Shepard a lousy shot when the player is new to shooters? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Of course it's possible. I'm a Human, which means that I am perfectly capable of changing my opinion when presented with an argument I find to be suitable.

Why would you ever find an argument suitable? Your opinions stem from your preferences, and arguments don't change those. All an argument can do is reveal a connection (between your preferences and the conclusion) of which you weren't previously aware.

No argument will convince you that you don't like oranges. Either you do or you don't. An argument might be able to convince you that you don't want to eat oranges, but it can only do that by appealing to opinions you already hold and providing new information which connects the two. For example, the argument "You shouldn't want to eat oranges because oranges are poisonous" only works if you have some pre-existing aversion to eating poisonous things.

It's easily possible and I do it frequently. That's why I can have discussions with other people about RPGs despite the fact that I've noted the BSN doesn't agree on a single definition.

You say thinga and they interpret the things you say. You cannot reliably predict what that interpretation will be, however, without shared definitions of terms.

Yes, removing real time with pause combat is taking away a core feature of what makes a BioWare game a BioWare game. I've never even said they should remove it.

But you wouldn't object:

I'm not against removing it even though I disagree about it being a series defining feature.

Locating and selecting targets isn't exactly aiming, though.

That's exactly what aiming is. It's analog target selection.

Given that full auto weapons requires consistent aim adjustments, it makes it not feasible to use the pause feature to aim with those weapons. Thus, the pause to aim system does not function for all weapons.

It doesn't function as well. It still functions.

Pause every half second. That's about how often I pause anyway.

[o Ventus]

 

Mass Effect is a bit of a weird case because there really isn't "other games of its sort". At least not that I'm aware of.

 

 

Alpha Protocol and The Bureau: XCOM Declassified are similar to ME, in that they are RPG-shooter hybrids with almost identical dialogue systems and semi-branching plots and choices. The Bureau even has powers and squadmates just like ME.

[Seraphim24]

This multi-quote battle is pretty incredible to watch.

[o Ventus]

That's exactly what aiming is. It's analog target selection.
It doesn't function as well. It still functions.

 

"Locating and selecting targets" in the context that Cyonan is using would be spotting, not necessarily aiming.

 

Pause every half second. That's about how often I pause anyway.

 

So you play the game constantly smashing the pause key?

[Spectr61]

No crutching, er, make that no pausing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

"Locating and selecting targets" in the context that Cyonan is using would be spotting, not necessarily aiming.

Since the camera moves with the gun sight, those things are equivalent.

So you play the game constantly smashing the pause key?

Just like other BioWare games, yes.

Though I'd say I calmly toggle in and out of pause, rather than smash.

[o Ventus]

Since the camera moves with the gun sight, those things are equivalent.
Just like other BioWare games, yes.

Though I'd say I calmly toggle in and out of pause, rather than smash.

Still no, since you don't need a firearm to spot. Simply looking with your eyes and visually seeing a target is spotting. Aiming is pointing your weapon at the target. You can see and enemy and not be aiming at them.

[Wynterdust]

Remove the cover based gameplay? In other words: Be just like the hundreds of other shooters on the market? No, thank you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Still no, since you don't need a firearm to spot. Simply looking with your eyes and visually seeing a target is spotting. Aiming is pointing your weapon at the target. You can see and enemy and not be aiming at them.

I said spot and select. In Mass Effect, you select a target by hovering the targeting reticle over it.

Aiming at a target and selecting a target are functionally equivalent. There is no cursor other than the targeting reticle. There is no other means to select anything.

[sjsharp2011]

Remove the cover based gameplay? In other words: Be just like the hundreds of other shooters on the market? No, thank you.

couldn't have put it better

[o Ventus]

I said spot and select. In Mass Effect, you select a target by hovering the targeting reticle over it.

Aiming at a target and selecting a target are functionally equivalent. There is no cursor other than the targeting reticle. There is no other means to select anything.

 

You select a target in your head when you decide who to shoot first. It has nothing to do with the targeting reticle.

[Cyonan]

I would disagree, but more importantly, I'd like to point out that you also didn't offer any reason for someone to share your opinion.

I also think you offered a bit of a straw man, since there are possible lore-consistent changes that wouldn't change gameplay that much.

Medi-gel could contain some future tech that actually does do the things you describe. Or we could replace the health bar with a combination of regenerating armour and shields and get the same gameplay without the lore-breaking healing.

And I think you've mislabeled incapacitation as death. Death, obviously, can't be healed.

 

I say that gameplay should take priority because it's the thing that we're doing for the bulk of the game itself even in story focused game like Mass Effect. If the gameplay isn't fun, then that means 2/3 of the game isn't fun which is going to cause a major issue considering one of the main purposes of the game is to entertain us. When gameplay and lore can line up it's great but in cases where they conflict, gameplay is the more noticed thing because of how often we're doing it.

 

With how the combat is designed, having perma-death would mean most players would likely lose all of their squadmates before the end of the game which results in less of the character dialogue that many of us loved. It's a feature that would be lore consistent but actively hurt both combat and dialogue.

 

Your form is Medi-gel isn't lore consistent, because it's explained in the codex exactly what it is. It's also used outside of combat in the game where it's not a magical instant cure all. Yes it's much more advanced than anything we have today, but it's not going to instantly cure a rocket to the face like Garrus can take dozens of times in Mass Effect 1 and walk it off. Of course it happens in a cutscene in ME2 so Medi-gel no longer has its super properties that it enjoys during combat.

 

With calling it incapacitation and regenerating armour at some point you're going to have to explain why you can walk away from a Banshee stabbing you in the heart or a sniper bullet going through your brain.

 

I found the timing on that really tricky, which is a problem if Shepard is supposed to be dextrous. Much like with real-time aiming: why is Shepard a lousy shot when the player is new to shooters? That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

Well controls can always be improved to be smoother.

 

Shep can be a lousy shot because the game expects you to aim in real time combat. Even in Mass Effect 1, I have to manually aim the gun when using real time. ME1 had a combat system that demanded skill from the player and then could punish you anyway because of character stats. It just didn't frustrate me to the levels of Morrowind's combat which I actually can't play without modding out the stupid miss chance.

 

Why would you ever find an argument suitable? Your opinions stem from your preferences, and arguments don't change those. All an argument can do is reveal a connection (between your preferences and the conclusion) of which you weren't previously aware.

No argument will convince you that you don't like oranges. Either you do or you don't. An argument might be able to convince you that you don't want to eat oranges, but it can only do that by appealing to opinions you already hold and providing new information which connects the two. For example, the argument "You shouldn't want to eat oranges because oranges are poisonous" only works if you have some pre-existing aversion to eating poisonous things.

 

You say thinga and they interpret the things you say. You cannot reliably predict what that interpretation will be, however, without shared definitions of terms.

 

and telling somebody oranges are poisonous isn't making them care about eating orange? I would care a lot if somebody told me I was about to eat something poisonous, and it would change my opinion on if I should eat that thing or not.

 

Even so, me and my friend frequently talk about mechanics and balance of games. He's managed to change my mind of a few opinions without presenting new information, but rather because of the way he presented it wasn't a way I had thought about it.

 

You can clarify what your personal definition of a term is. Are Americans and British unable to communicate about some things because one side calls it an elevator while the other side calls it a lift?

 

But you wouldn't object:

 

In that case they shouldn't remove it because real time with pause is a staple of a BioWare game, and in a game like Mass Effect pause to aim is a natural byproduct of that.

 

Congratulations. You just witnessed somebody having their opinions changed without actually being presented with new information.

 

That's exactly what aiming is. It's analog target selection.
It doesn't function as well. It still functions.

Pause every half second. That's about how often I pause anyway.

 

As Ventus said, that's spotting and not aiming. Aiming requires that your gun sights actually make an attempt to stay on the target.

 

In the case of a full auto weapon, adjustments need to be made in real time in order to actually do that because bullets are constantly being fired. In the case of Mass Effect 3 weapons like the Javelin and Reegar Carbine would be basically impossible to use with nothing but pause to aim, because they have charge up times before firing but you can't hold the gun at full charge. It will automatically fire half a second of holding the trigger.

[Malanek]

Doesn't pause to aim make the game absolutely trivial? To me it would feel like cheating. There are plenty of weapons and powers you can use that make aiming skill less important. At the very least I would hope that they never balance the game around expecting the player to pause.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You select a target in your head when you decide who to shoot first. It has nothing to do with the targeting reticle.

Where did I say "in your head" or anything like it.

How do you select a target in a turn-based game? By clicking on it. How do you select a target in a shooter? By aiming at it.

I am not responsible for your inferences.

[78stonewobble]

Even experienced players get stuck sometimes where they don't want to. 

 

"Explode" the one button to rule them all and it would be 90 percent fixed. 

 

Have cover / no cover be optional (either better controls or a setting) and satisfy everyone.