289 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Everything we do in the game is gameplay. Including dialogue. Including inventory management. Whenever we're making decisions, we're playing the game.

And it should all work. But if the mechanics of what we're doing are inconsistent with the lore of the setting, then the decision-making can't operate under the same rules all the time. And then we need to know exactly which rules apply when.

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.

Unless the rest of combat were designed with that in mind. Getting shot shouldn't be an expected result in a firefight. I would expect characters to want to avoid getting shot.

Moreover, if ME3 is any guide, squadmates don't fall in combat. I can't recall an instance when they did. And even if that were a problem, that's what difficulty settings are for.

Your form is Medi-gel isn't lore consistent, because it's explained in the codex exactly what it is.

Is the codex reliable? How precisely does it describe the medi-gel? What exactly falls under the definition of "medicines"?

There's lots of ambiguity there with which to work.

Cutscenes also often cause problems in this way. I see that as a problem with having cutscenes.

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 typically view combat animations as abstractions.

If the character doesn't die, then clearly the wound wasn't fatal, even though it might have looked fatal.

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.

That's not an in-setting explanation. Why does Shepard think he misses under those circumstances?

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.

I hate that games don't have miss chances anymore.

And no ME game has demanded skill from the player. Fire in short bursts and aim while paused.

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.

Only because you have a pre-existing aversion to eating poisonous things. What if we replace the word poisonous with the word tasty? Is my argument compelling then? Of course not, because you don't have an aversion to eating tasty things.

You completely missed my point.

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.

Thereby revealing new information to you that you already possessed but hadn't processed.

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?

If they were wholly unaware of what the other side meant with their word, absolutely.

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.

You hadn't previously considered the real-time-with-pause trend as relevant. That's the new information.

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.

Can you not pause while the trigger is held?

[Cyonan]

Everything we do in the game is gameplay. Including dialogue. Including inventory management. Whenever we're making decisions, we're playing the game.

And it should all work. But if the mechanics of what we're doing are inconsistent with the lore of the setting, then the decision-making can't operate under the same rules all the time. And then we need to know exactly which rules apply when.

 

Unless the rest of combat were designed with that in mind. Getting shot shouldn't be an expected result in a firefight. I would expect characters to want to avoid getting shot.

Moreover, if ME3 is any guide, squadmates don't fall in combat. I can't recall an instance when they did. And even if that were a problem, that's what difficulty settings are for.

 

I was talking about combat gameplay. In either case, I'm not even trying to convince you that action combat is a good thing because I would consider the effort to be a complete waste of my time.

 

Designing combat with perma-death in mind requires such a revamp that it would be completely different from what we have now. We might as well go back to talking about removing pause to aim if that's the case.

 

Is the codex reliable? How precisely does it describe the medi-gel? What exactly falls under the definition of "medicines"?

There's lots of ambiguity there with which to work.

Cutscenes also often cause problems in this way. I see that as a problem with having cutscenes.

 

The Codex was written by BioWare and explains exactly what Medi-Gel is. Plus as I said, it's used outside of combat without the same effects as when it's used in combat.

 

There is no ambiguity to work with.

 

That's not an in-setting explanation. Why does Shepard think he misses under those circumstances?

 

Like you always tell me: It's up to the player to define the PC's mental state.

 

Player skill will always be needed at times. Even in D&D if I want to play a brilliant tactician I myself have to be good at tactics or else that character wont be. I don't get to roll a dice to have the GM tell me how to play my character.

 

If you lack that skill and want to roleplay, it's on you to come up with the mental process of the character.

 

And no ME game has demanded skill from the player. Fire in short bursts and aim while paused.

 

Given what I was quoting and the topic being discussed, this is just being pedantic.

 

Thereby revealing new information to you that you already possessed but hadn't processed.

 

You hadn't previously considered the real-time-with-pause trend as relevant. That's the new information.

 

If I already possessed it then by definition it was not new information.

 

You provided me no new information I did not previously have. My considering something relevant or not is an opinion, not information.

 

Can you not pause while the trigger is held?

 

Bringing up the powers menu interrupts the charging of those weapons. Even if it didn't, you would have to time the pause to happen just before the guns fired which requires arguably more skill than actually aiming the thing normally does.

 

 

In the case of a full auto weapon you must enter a scenario where either you are no longer aiming at an enemy or have begun aiming in real time to stay with them(assuming the enemy does not die).

 

 

If they were wholly unaware of what the other side meant with their word, absolutely.

 

but they know the general idea of what the other side means which works.

 

You're literally the only person I've ever known that seemingly requires a set in stone solid definition of a word. If every other Human I've met can work without having that, it can't be that difficult of a thing to do much less an impossible thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Codex was written by BioWare and explains exactly what Medi-Gel is. Plus as I said, it's used outside of combat without the same effects as when it's used in combat.

There is no ambiguity to work with.

I meant from an in-game perspective, not a metagame perspective. For example, the Dragon Age codex is explicitly unreliable. Each entry is written from a certain point of view, and they can be wrong.

And there's always ambiguity. Maybe "medi-gel" is a generic term that refers to a wide range of medical products. If we don't know for certain that something is not true, then it possibly is true.

Like you always tell me: It's up to the player to define the PC's mental state.

In this case, the game is presenting Shepard with nonsensical information.

Also, I should be able to design a skilled character withour being skilled myself. That's the whole point of stats. That's why RPGs differ in kind from games. Games challenge the player. RPGs aren't supposed to.

Player skill will always be needed at times. Even in D&D if I want to play a brilliant tactician I myself have to be good at tactics or else that character wont be. I don't get to roll a dice to have the GM tell me how to play my character.

That's not how I play it. And that's not how it's described by the rules. Why do you think skills like Gather Information exist?

My character can use a sword even if I can't. My character can tie knots or climb walls or swim even if I can't. My character can plan a battle even if I can't.

Given what I was quoting and the topic being discussed, this is just being pedantic.

It strikes directly at the heart of the discussion.

If I already possessed it then by definition it was not new information.

You provided me no new information I did not previously have. My considering something relevant or not is an opinion, not information.

It would depend how we define new.

Bringing up the powers menu interrupts the charging of those weapons.

That's just lousy design. What if you want to give a command to your squadmates right then?

I wonder if it does that with KBM. I understand that, on console, you can't fire a weapon immediately upon unpausing, but that limitation doesn't exist with the KBM controls.

Even if it didn't, you would have to time the pause to happen just before the guns fired which requires arguably more skill than actually aiming the thing normally does.

You seem to remember the enemies being way faster than I remember them.

You're literally the only person I've ever known that seemingly requires a set in stone solid definition of a word. If every other Human I've met can work without having that, it can't be that difficult of a thing to do much less an impossible thing.

They're guessing.

They haven't noticed.

[Timberley]

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.

 

In both instances I select a target the same way; deciding which of the available targets would be 'best' to remove from continued play.  This is based upon my (and my team if applicable) available options for engaging the target, the threat they present to myself (and/or the team), and how speedily they can be removed from play.  These options obviously only apply to games where shooting/destroying said target is the outcome required by the game's mechanics to prevent the target from persisting as a threat.  Once the target is selected, I can then use the game's input method to apply an action to the selected target.

 

I then apply an action to the target based upon clicking or aiming.  

 

Tim

[Seraphim24]

Oh my god! Still going strong!

[Cyonan]

I meant from an in-game perspective, not a metagame perspective. For example, the Dragon Age codex is explicitly unreliable. Each entry is written from a certain point of view, and they can be wrong.

And there's always ambiguity. Maybe "medi-gel" is a generic term that refers to a wide range of medical products. If we don't know for certain that something is not true, then it possibly is true.

 

This is a meta-knowledge discussion, but the gel is an actual specific product produced by the Sirta Foundation. It also is technically illegal, but has been deemed too useful to outright ban.

 

If you actually read the codex, you would know this =P

 

In this case, the game is presenting Shepard with nonsensical information.

Also, I should be able to design a skilled character withour being skilled myself. That's the whole point of stats. That's why RPGs differ in kind from games. Games challenge the player. RPGs aren't supposed to.
That's not how I play it. And that's not how it's described by the rules. Why do you think skills like Gather Information exist?

My character can use a sword even if I can't. My character can tie knots or climb walls or swim even if I can't. My character can plan a battle even if I can't.

 

Mass Effect isn't using a pure RP approach.

 

Gather Information doesn't typically make the GM tell you how to play your character. If you don't know good D&D combat tactics then you can't play a very good tactician. Your character can swing a sword without you doing anything more than a dice roll but you can't just go "And I come up with a brilliant battle plan" and then roll a dice during a battle that you're participating in. You have to actually tell the other players what your brilliant plan is.

 

It strikes directly at the heart of the discussion.

 

It makes you seem needlessly pedantic and makes me likely to simply just ignore statements doing it because they're counter productive to having a proper debate. I'm here to have discussions about Mass Effect, not be nitpicky about every little term whenever it suits us to argue its meaning for our point of view.

 

That's just lousy design. What if you want to give a command to your squadmates right then?

I wonder if it does that with KBM. I understand that, on console, you can't fire a weapon immediately upon unpausing, but that limitation doesn't exist with the KBM controls.

 

I only play on PC so I don't know how it works on console but even in MP where the powers menu doesn't actually pause the game, it still interrupts the charging.

 

but if the intention is to support pause to aim I would generally agree that it's bad design. That's kind of what I've been saying about the whole way it works, is that it kind of doesn't with a lot of weapons.

 

You seem to remember the enemies being way faster than I remember them.

 

Banshees can teleport every half a second or so during her aggressive stance. Phantoms flip around like caffeine addicts, and the Nemesis is rather jumpy as well. That's just a few examples.

 

It has to be applied against all enemies, not just trash mobs like Troopers or massive and slow targets like Atlases.

 

They're guessing.

They haven't noticed.

 

and we can still have a perfectly fine conversation debating various topics while doing this guessing and not having to spend half the time clarifying what we mean.

 

So I would say that, from my experience, it's working significantly better than your approach.

 

Oh my god! Still going strong!

 

It's not like I have anything better to do or have gotten bored of this =P

[RoboticWater]

It's not like I have anything better to do or have gotten bored of this =P

Your stamina is impressive.

[Cyonan]

Your stamina is impressive.

 

I get that often =P

[KaiserShep]

If the character doesn't die, then clearly the wound wasn't fatal, even though it might have looked fatal.

 

 

Heh, this reminds me of many encounters in DA:O, when the Warden and the rest of the party get overwhelmed by motherscratchin' spiders, and when they recover, they're squirting blood from their abdomens like an old Samurai movie. Then they just walk it off. Good times. 

[ruggly]

It's not like I have anything better to do or have gotten bored of this =P

 

You get a gold star for all of this

 

[capn233]

It wouldn't be the end of the world if cover was removed, but I don't really see the point of doing this.  Mass Effect 1 would be closest to a theoretical "no cover" MEA, given that you could crouch and usually soft cover made more sense than going into cover via its "autodock."

[Shaftell]

Cover mechanics has become a part of Mass Effect, it'd be odd if they get rid of it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is a meta-knowledge discussion, but the gel is an actual specific product produced by the Sirta Foundation. It also is technically illegal, but has been deemed too useful to outright ban.

If you actually read the codex, you would know this =P

I clearly didn't find the game interesting enough to do that. I read all the codex entries in ME1, but that was a long time ago.

Brand names do often become genericized. Google, for example. Again, it's not hard to manufacture enough ambiguity to make something like this work. The codex describes Medi-Gel ™, but the term medigel is used generically.

Certainty is extremely hard to come by. Let's work with that.

Mass Effect isn't using a pure RP approach.

It's not using an any RP approach if it's presenting an incoherent setting. That's been my point all along. Either you're roleplaying or you're not. You might roleplay for part of the game and not roleplay for part of the game, but at any given moment you're either roleplaying or you're not. And if the game's setting is incoherent, you're not (because any possible mental state would be nonsensical). Your character's mental state would need to contradict at least part of the game world in order for it to be useful. But what if that part you contradict later becomes relevant? Now you have a character that is incompatible with the game's narrative.

I'm saying that the ME games are only playable if you don't roleplay at all.

Gather Information doesn't typically make the GM tell you how to play your character. If you don't know good D&D combat tactics then you can't play a very good tactician. Your character can swing a sword without you doing anything more than a dice roll but you can't just go "And I come up with a brilliant battle plan" and then roll a dice during a battle that you're participating in. You have to actually tell the other players what your brilliant plan is.

The GM can point out useful details about the environment if your character is smart enough to make use of them. The GM can give you misleading information if not. The GM can control the enemy behaviour such that they run afoul of your plan if you're skilled at planning, or avoid it if not.

I'd have the player describe a plan, secretly roll dice to determine the effectiveness of that plan, and then have the scene play out from there.

It makes you seem needlessly pedantic and makes me likely to simply just ignore statements doing it because they're counter productive to having a proper debate. I'm here to have discussions about Mass Effect, not be nitpicky about every little term whenever it suits us to argue its meaning for our point of view.

I like to think that I only do that when it's necessary to make progress in the discussion. Arguing for argument's sake is pointless. Argument is a means, not an end.

I only play on PC so I don't know how it works on console but even in MP where the powers menu doesn't actually pause the game, it still interrupts the charging.

but if the intention is to support pause to aim I would generally agree that it's bad design.

The inconsistency is bad regardless. If the game rewards one playstyle (and it does strongly reward pause-to-aim; I'm not particularly skilled at shooters, but with pause-to-aim I found the difficulty of ME3 trivial), it should not then later effectively disable that playstyle.

Granted, BioWare has done that before. KotOR worked really well with the protagonist playing a support role within the party, but then the final battle is a one-on-one duel which is almost (but not quite) impossible without combat skills.

Banshees can teleport every half a second or so during her aggressive stance. Phantoms flip around like caffeine addicts, and the Nemesis is rather jumpy as well. That's just a few examples.

It has to be applied against all enemies, not just trash mobs like Troopers or massive and slow targets like Atlases.

Half a second is plenty of time to unpause and fire. Just pause as soon as the enemy jumps.

The final battle with Saren in ME1 is all about Saren jumping around. But with pause-to-aim it's not even vaguely difficult.

and we can still have a perfectly fine conversation debating various topics while doing this guessing and not having to spend half the time clarifying what we mean.

So I would say that, from my experience, it's working significantly better than your approach.

Because your minds are all relevantly similar, so you guess similarly.

But then someone like me comes along who doesn't guess similarly (nor do I have any idea how you people do it), and your system breaks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

It wouldn't be the end of the world if cover was removed, but I don't really see the point of doing this. Mass Effect 1 would be closest to a theoretical "no cover" MEA, given that you could crouch and usually soft cover made more sense than going into cover via its "autodock."

If we could just get crouch back that would be huge.

With the new engine, it will be very interesting to see how the controls change.

[Cyonan]

I clearly didn't find the game interesting enough to do that. I read all the codex entries in ME1, but that was a long time ago.

Brand names do often become genericized. Google, for example. Again, it's not hard to manufacture enough ambiguity to make something like this work. The codex describes Medi-Gel ™, but the term medigel is used generically.

Certainty is extremely hard to come by. Let's work with that.

 

You just admitted you don't know the lore and are attempting to argue lore with me. You basically just defeated your own argument by admitting you don't actually know what you're talking about.

 

Plus, you've been ignoring the fact that I keep pointing out that Medi-Gel only works like that in combat within the game.

 

It's not using an any RP approach if it's presenting an incoherent setting. That's been my point all along. Either you're roleplaying or you're not. You might roleplay for part of the game and not roleplay for part of the game, but at any given moment you're either roleplaying or you're not. And if the game's setting is incoherent, you're not (because any possible mental state would be nonsensical). Your character's mental state would need to contradict at least part of the game world in order for it to be useful. But what if that part you contradict later becomes relevant? Now you have a character that is incompatible with the game's narrative.

I'm saying that the ME games are only playable if you don't roleplay at all.

 

Then Mass Effect isn't a RPG by your own definition.

 

I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

The GM can point out useful details about the environment if your character is smart enough to make use of them. The GM can give you misleading information if not. The GM can control the enemy behaviour such that they run afoul of your plan if you're skilled at planning, or avoid it if not.

I'd have the player describe a plan, secretly roll dice to determine the effectiveness of that plan, and then have the scene play out from there.

 

I'm talking about combat tactics. If you as a player don't understand basic turn based combat strategy and think charging a line of knights as a rogue is a good idea, you're probably going to get yourself killed. The GM isn't there to tell you every move to make in combat.

 

Half a second is plenty of time to unpause and fire. Just pause as soon as the enemy jumps.

The final battle with Saren in ME1 is all about Saren jumping around. But with pause-to-aim it's not even vaguely difficult.

 

This is still talking about weapons with a charge time that you can't hold the charge and will immediately fire upon reaching max charge.

 

If the enemy is jumping around like a caffeine addict, you have to time the pause.

 

Because your minds are all relevantly similar, so you guess similarly.

But then someone like me comes along who doesn't guess similarly (nor do I have any idea how you people do it), and your system breaks.

 

When I said "Literally the only person" I was not exaggerating. You are the only person I have ever met in my life that this has been a big issue with.

 

You're seriously going to suggest everybody I've ever held a discussion with in my life has been of a similar mind? Because that's ridiculous even for BSN.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You just admitted you don't know the lore and are attempting to argue lore with me. You basically just defeated your own argument by admitting you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Am I wrong, though? Is it not the case that the word medigel could be being used for multiple things?

There's even evidence for this in the game:

Plus, you've been ignoring the fact that I keep pointing out that Medi-Gel only works like that in combat within the game.

Which means that medigel does work like that in the game. We see something that is called medigel, but doesn't conform to the codex description.

It clearly isn't the same substance.

Then Mass Effect isn't a RPG by your own definition.

I've been saying this for years.

I'm talking about combat tactics. If you as a player don't understand basic turn based combat strategy and think charging a line of knights as a rogue is a good idea, you're probably going to get yourself killed. The GM isn't there to tell you every move to make in combat.

Yes, if you can't comprehend the rules of the game, you're not going to be able to play it. You arguably never do.

I'm limiting my consideration to actual players, not some subnormal specimen who just happens to be in the room

This is still talking about weapons with a charge time that you can't hold the charge and will immediately fire upon reaching max charge.

I was still talking about automatic weapons being fired in short bursts.

I'm entirely unfamiliar with the charging weapons you describe (I played ME3 only once, using sniper rifles almost exclusively).

If the enemy is jumping around like a caffeine addict, you have to time the pause.

No you don't. You just have to pause frequently enough. Unpause and then immediately pause again. Now where is he? If he's still moving, unpause and then immediately pause again. Rinse & repeat.

Real-time-with-pause combat is effectively turn-based combat where the turns are extremely short and happen simultaneously. Usually, we let several turns elapse at once, but we don't have to do that.

Also, since it's squad-based, we can also just wait for the squadmates to kill the more difficult enemies. Or use a drone. There are so many more options than just shooting in real time.

When I said "Literally the only person" I was not exaggerating. You are the only person I have ever met in my life that this has been a big issue with.

You're seriously going to suggest everybody I've ever held a discussion with in my life has been of a similar mind? Because that's ridiculous even for BSN.

You can't read people's minds. You wouldn't know if someone you met was simply mimicking normal human behaviour in order to get through the day.

I don't think people usually notice when I do it.

[Quarian Master Race]

A note on the pause to aim, is it doesn't really work (at least on console) as of ME2. If you attempt to use the power wheel while ADS/scoped, it will kick you out of it back into hipfire, which ruins your accuracy cone at all but very close ranges (and in the case of ME3 sniper rifles, reduces your damage by up to half). It seems the designers deliberately tried to get rid of it as a viable tactic, which would indicate that it is considered more of an exploit than a deliberate feature.

You can pause, look in the general direction of the enemy, unpause, ADS, acquire your target and fire, but that actually does require some mechanical skill (not as much as aiming entirely in real time while the enemy is shooting back, but still a lot more than something like selecting auto-attacks on a turn based game).

As noted, it basically doesn't work at all with automatic weapons, charge weapons and especially ramp up damage/fire rate weapons like the PPR, Typhoon, Striker, Spitfire or GPSMG, which require you to hold the trigger and adjust aim in real time to be at all effective (well, all except the GPSMG, which isn't effective no matter what you do). 

[Cyonan]

Am I wrong, though? Is it not the case that the word medigel could be being used for multiple things?

There's even evidence for this in the game:
Which means that medigel does work like that in the game. We see something that is called medigel, but doesn't conform to the codex description.

It clearly isn't the same substance.

 

Yes you're wrong because the Codex is reliable and states what it is. You're reaching for an argument in an effort to create some ambiguity where there is none.

 

Medi-Gel only works like that in-game in combat. Even Shep's own medi-gel stops working like that outside of combat. Are you going to tell me the exact same substance magically has different properties when I'm actively being shot at?

 

I've been saying this for years.

 

Based on what you're telling me here, it sounds like we should be worried about the cover based shooter elements because that's the genre that Mass Effect actually is. If the game isn't a RPG, I have no reason to care about it not taking any approach to RPG much less yours. I wouldn't ask Grand Theft Auto to become a RPG, so why Mass Effect?

 

Thus, if they do things like break lore for mechanics or make Shep's mental state make no sense it doesn't matter because cover based shooters don't have to explain that.

 

 

Actually that would mean, using that logic, they should remove pause to aim because it trivializes the combat due to allowing the player to never miss with pinpoint accurate weapons despite lacking skill. A cover based shooter is a skill based combat system, and if you want to take the pure CBS approach then you should reward player skill.

 

See how fun forcefully applying labels to games is?

 

You can't read people's minds. You wouldn't know if someone you met was simply mimicking normal human behaviour in order to get through the day.

I don't think people usually notice when I do it.

 

They could be sacrificing a goat to Satan every Sunday night for all I care.

 

The point is that me and them are perfectly capable of holding a discussion without spending half of it attempting to rigidly define terms.

[fizzypop]

Hard cover is way more realistic than just walking up to a wall and staring straight at it while trying to poorly shoot out on the side while still being in "cover". IRL most people use cover fluidly like in ME series. It isn't uncommon to see guys leaning up against a wall or car. They peak their heads up or off to the side in order to shoot. I do like the ducking behind objects, but soft or hard cover you will ALWAYS have environments with extra junk for using as cover. This will not change. To me it is more camera and what you think looks nicer. To be honest I find the animations prettier and less stupid looking using hard cover. Many shooter games the awkwardness look of soft cover is very real.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes you're wrong because the Codex is reliable and states what it is.

You're asserting that the codex is reliable.  There's no in-game evidence for that.  BioWare could declare the codex to be unreliable and it would have no affect of the game whatsoever.  Because what BioWare says outside teh game doesn't matter.  It matters what's actually in the game, and what's in the game is no evidence for the reliability of the codex.
 
 

. You're reaching for an argument in an effort to create some ambiguity where there is none.

Yes, I am reaching to create ambiguity.  Absolutely.  Because ambiguity can make the game better.
 
 

Medi-Gel only works like that in-game in combat. Even Shep's own medi-gel stops working like that outside of combat. Are you going to tell me the exact same substance magically has different properties when I'm actively being shot at?

I'm saying that they're two different substances because they have wildly different properties.
 
 

Based on what you're telling me here, it sounds like we should be worried about the cover based shooter elements because that's the genre that Mass Effect actually is. If the game isn't a RPG, I have no reason to care about it not taking any approach to RPG much less yours. I wouldn't ask Grand Theft Auto to become a RPG, so why Mass Effect?

You're not doing that.  Asking why is nonsensical.
 
 

Thus, if they do things like break lore for mechanics or make Shep's mental state make no sense it doesn't matter because cover based shooters don't have to explain that.

But they make me care about the game less, because the setting is inconsistent.  I stop caring about the welfare of the characters in the game.  I stop caring about the story.  In ME2, I was wholly uninterested in whether Shepard survived, or even whether the Collectors were defeated.  It just didn't matter, because the setting didn't make sense.  If the setting doesn't make sense, it isn't predictable, so whether the Collectors were defeated was demonstrably irrelevant.  They could disappear or reappear in the future for any reason.
 
We need some reason to trust what the game tells us, and the ME setting actively undermines that trust.
 
 

Actually that would mean, using that logic, they should remove pause to aim because it trivializes the combat due to allowing the player to never miss with pinpoint accurate weapons despite lacking skill. A cover based shooter is a skill based combat system, and if you want to take the pure CBS approach then you should reward player skill.

Except that pause-to-aim is optional.  Players can choose not to use it, and not using it has the same material effect as it not being there.
 
Removing the option gives players nothing more than they already had.  Unless there's some design benefit to not having it there (and there might be - new engine, after all), removing it just to deprive players of the option is malicious.
 
 

See how fun forcefully applying labels to games is?

Given that you showed exactly how symmetrical this argument isn't, yes, I do.

They could be sacrificing a goat to Satan every Sunday night for all I care.
 
The point is that me and them are perfectly capable of holding a discussion without spending half of it attempting to rigidly define terms.

But you can't actually tell whether you understand each other, because you can't perceive the process by which you supposedly do.

[Cyonan]

I'm saying that they're two different substances because they have wildly different properties.

 

Only I just told you that the same medi-gel from the same person has differing effects based on being used either in or out of combat.

 

You're not doing that.  Asking why is nonsensical.

 

I'm not asking for GTA to be a RPG because I find it stupid to insist a game should change genres like that.

 

You however don't think Mass Effect is a RPG and yet are asking for it to change genres. So I see no major difference between me asking for GTA to be a RPG and you asking for Mass Effect to be one.

 

At least when looking at it with your assessment of what the term RPG means(I don't actually agree with your definition, but that doesn't matter here).

 

But they make me care about the game less, because the setting is inconsistent.  I stop caring about the welfare of the characters in the game.  I stop caring about the story.  In ME2, I was wholly uninterested in whether Shepard survived, or even whether the Collectors were defeated.  It just didn't matter, because the setting didn't make sense.  If the setting doesn't make sense, it isn't predictable, so whether the Collectors were defeated was demonstrably irrelevant.  They could disappear or reappear in the future for any reason.
 
We need some reason to trust what the game tells us, and the ME setting actively undermines that trust.

 

but cover based shooters need to worry about solid real time combat mechanics first and foremost, even if it means breaking lore or not explaining mental states of characters.

 

The fact that you personally don't like how CBS games work isn't relevant since we're apparently so concerned with games fitting into very specific labels. So when lore can play nice with combat gameplay then it's good but when they conflict, combat mechanics should take priority because that's how it is in a pure approach to cover based shooting.

 

Except that pause-to-aim is optional.  Players can choose not to use it, and not using it has the same material effect as it not being there.
 
Removing the option gives players nothing more than they already had.  Unless there's some design benefit to not having it there (and there might be - new engine, after all), removing it just to deprive players of the option is malicious.

 

It trivializes the higher difficulties and breaks the balance of the combat gameplay by allowing players to never miss with what are supposed to be high skill weapons(mainly Sniper Rifles).

 

It being optional doesn't really matter, if it breaks the balance of the game that badly it has no place in the skill based combat that a cover based shooter has. When you have a weapon designed to reward highly skilled players and you allow players to ignore the skill requirement, it hurts the overall combat gameplay optional or not.

 

It's not because I hate players who want to use it or aren't good enough to use a Sniper Rifle in real time. It's because apparently we need to be so concerned about "pure approach" to genres. If a player isn't a good shot, there are weapons that don't require as much skill like the Hurricane, Falcon, or many Shotguns when you get up close.

 

But you can't actually tell whether you understand each other, because you can't perceive the process by which you supposedly do.

 

but we can still hold discussions where I sway some of their opinions and they sway some of mine and we don't have to spend so much time rigidly defining every little term that might have some discrepancy as to the definition.

 

I don't care how much guessing that involves, it's still a discussion with value to it. It's easily done because it's only a handful of terms we'd have some discrepancy on. It's not as though I'm speaking English and they're speaking Russian.

 

If somebody notes they hold a different definition of a term then I get the general idea of it and make a mental note whenever they use it. Kind of like how I don't agree with your definition of RPG, but I'm not lost when you use it because I have a general idea as to what you're talking about when you do.

 

If I were as insistent as you about having rigidly defined terms, we'd still be discussing what RPG means and I would be mentioning XCOM a lot more.

[Alex_Dur4and]

Mass effect needs to stay mass effect. ME3 combat mechanics were perfect. They just need to fix bugs and have x button not do everything!

[RoboticWater]

Except that pause-to-aim is optional.  Players can choose not to use it, and not using it has the same material effect as it not being there.
 
Removing the option gives players nothing more than they already had.  Unless there's some design benefit to not having it there (and there might be - new engine, after all), removing it just to deprive players of the option is malicious.

Removing crutch mechanics guarantees that every player will experience the game's other mechanics in their more optimal forms. Given options, players will more likely make safer decisions that inadvertently lead them to have less fun, so developers need to prod players out of their comfort zones.

There are also many instances where optional mechanics can diminish the core experience of a game. For example, including a pause mechanic in a horror game would actively undermine the intimidating atmosphere because players would feel safer.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Only I just told you that the same medi-gel from the same person has differing effects based on being used either in or out of combat.

Why do you think it's the same substance?  What evidence do you have for that?

 

It behaves wildly differently.  You're just assuming it's the same substance because it has the same name.

I'm not asking for GTA to be a RPG because I find it stupid to insist a game should change genres like that.

I've known people who insist that GTA is an RPG.

 

That's why I think the label needs a more widely accepted definition.

You however don't think Mass Effect is a RPG and yet are asking for it to change genres. So I see no major difference between me asking for GTA to be a RPG and you asking for Mass Effect to be one.

I completely agree with this.

but cover based shooters need to worry about solid real time combat mechanics first and foremost, even if it means breaking lore or not explaining mental states of characters.
 
The fact that you personally don't like how CBS games work isn't relevant since we're apparently so concerned with games fitting into very specific labels. So when lore can play nice with combat gameplay then it's good but when they conflict, combat mechanics should take priority because that's how it is in a pure approach to cover based shooting.

I fail to see how that would ever be fun.

 

I often argue that the game's mechanics should be designed first, and then everything else (including lore) be built to accommodate that.  Most games don't.  Most CRPGs don't.  But if CBS games did that, they would have the solid mechanics you want (because those were built first, unconstrained by any other concerns) with the consistent lore I want.

It trivializes the higher difficulties and breaks the balance of the combat gameplay by allowing players to never miss with what are supposed to be high skill weapons(mainly Sniper Rifles).
 
It being optional doesn't really matter, if it breaks the balance of the game that badly it has no place in the skill based combat that a cover based shooter has. When you have a weapon designed to reward highly skilled players and you allow players to ignore the skill requirement, it hurts the overall combat gameplay optional or not.

It doesn't break the balance of the game at all.  It does allow the player to break the balance of the game, but that should always be the player's call.  That's also why I'm a big fan of modding or using the developer console.  The game can be whatever each player wants it to be.  If the player wants to play the game the devs made as the devs intended, they're free to do that.  But they're not forced.

 

Forcing them benefits no one.  Nowhere have I asked for anything to be forced on anyone.  I have asked only for options.

It's not because I hate players who want to use it or aren't good enough to use a Sniper Rifle in real time. It's because apparently we need to be so concerned about "pure approach" to genres. If a player isn't a good shot, there are weapons that don't require as much skill like the Hurricane, Falcon, or many Shotguns when you get up close.

Except those close-up weapons produce faster-paced gameplay, which is exactly the think pause-to-aim avoids.

but we can still hold discussions where I sway some of their opinions and they sway some of mine and we don't have to spend so much time rigidly defining every little term that might have some discrepancy as to the definition.

How does that work?  What are the mechanics of persuasion under those circumstances?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Removing crutch mechanics guarantees that every player will experience the game's other mechanics in their more optimal forms. Given options, players will more likely make safer decisions that inadvertently lead them to have less fun, so developers need to prod players out of their comfort zones.

There are also many instances where optional mechanics can diminish the core experience of a game. For example, including a pause mechanic in a horror game would actively undermine the intimidating atmosphere because players would feel safer.

Are the players stupid?  Why would they harm their own experience like that?  That's idiotic.

 

The designers should not be trying to protect the players from themselves.  Doing so is paternalistic and, frankly, offensive.

 

If I'm playing a horror game, I want to feel safer.  That I don't feel safe in horror games is why I don't play horror games.  I hate that feeling.

 

And you know who's the best judge of what I like?  I am.