How exactly would an over the shoulder shooter with an active cover system work in first person? Yeah, it wouldn't. Mass Effect is not an FPS and it never will be for obvious reasons.
Hard cover system in first person, brought to you by the year 2007. It even had blindfire, a feature that pretty much every TPS I've ever played has had.....except Mass Effect of course.
I don't mind first person as long as it only as alternative, I don't really like Borderland, Deus EX, Alien Isolation because of first person exclusivity.
Hard cover system in first person, brought to you by the year 2007. It even had blindfire, a feature that pretty much every TPS I've ever played has had.....except Mass Effect of course.
First of all, Killzone is a terrible FPS that I'm surprised Sony hasn't shuttered. Secondly, Mass Effect isn't just a shooter, but also uses melee, biotics, giving commands to companions, etc. Third, there is a difference between optional cover systems in FPS games (Battlefield and Fallout 4 offer this) versus Mass Effect, where cover is actually required to play the game. The former is optional cover but not actually necessary for completion whereas the latter has levels built specifically to accommodate cover because completion would be incredibly difficult if not impossible otherwise.
Lastly, and the ultimate issue with a first person mode, is that it would clearly be inferior to the third person mode (not to mention BioWare would have to spend a lot of time and money to make first person animations for everything). Third person has always been inferior in BGS games because they were made to be first person experiences and were only first person in the days of Arena and Daggerfall. I'd much rather BioWare focus on one approach and make it as best as possible instead of offering multiple approaches and both suffering.
For the kind of game Mass Effect is, first person does not make sense.
First of all, Killzone is a terrible FPS that I'm surprised Sony hasn't shuttered.
Opinion, and not supported by reviewers who know a lot more about video games than you giving multiple games in the series excellent scores (KZ2, the one featured, for instance, tends to trend around a 9 to a 9.5/10).
Secondly, Mass Effect isn't just a shooter, but also uses melee, biotics, giving commands to companions, etc.
so? Use a different animation for tossing your incinerates or warps or whatever. Would hardly be different from throwing a grenade (which the above game has). Giving commands has nothing to do with the cover system, given that squadmates can target powers from completely out of their own LOS.
Third, there is a difference between optional cover systems in FPS games (Battlefield and Fallout 4 offer this) versus Mass Effect, where cover is actually required to play the game. The former is optional cover but not actually necessary for completion whereas the latter has levels built specifically to accommodate cover because completion would be incredibly difficult if not impossible otherwise.
you sound terrible at these games. Hardcover is complete garbage that never need be used in 2 of these games (ME1 and ME3), and situational in the other for some classes (ME2, but you can still ignore it if you're a fast killer). I practically never use the hardcover system for anything but stabilizing some innacurate weapons or getting 40% more Damage Reduction.Neither does anyone who actually knows the meta for these games. (count how many times this guy uses the cover system)
and we have no problems with completing anything these games offer, especially not in the comically easy lolSinglePlayer mode. Your claim is patently absurd.
Lastly, and the ultimate issue with a first person mode, is that it would clearly be inferior to the third person mode (not to mention BioWare would have to spend a lot of time and money to make first person animations for everything). Third person has always been inferior in BGS games because they were made to be first person experiences and were only first person in the days of Arena and Daggerfall. I'd much rather BioWare focus on one approach and make it as best as possible instead of offering multiple approaches and both suffering.
"Clearly inferior" in what sense? From a gameplay meta perspective, sure, 1st is almost always non optimal in games that have both unless there are mechanical differences between the two (e.g. increased accuracy or weapon stability), which I don't think anyone is advocating.
Moreover, this assumes that everyone's purpose in playing these games is to play them in the most efficient fashion possible. Now, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure 100% of everyone didn't play solely the Infiltrator or Vanguard classes even though they are categorically superior to the 4 others in pretty much every conceivable objective manner as far as efficiency is concerned (or rather, they're completely overpowered). Indeed, judging by comments of most people on this board, the hardcover system is used quite a lot by most players even though there is universal consensus among the best players that using it is inferior to soft cover/RHA styles of playing (as demonstrated by the video above). If the purpose of playing the game is just to Min/Max, all of these features could be deleted.
First person would just be another choice for some to play the game how they wanted, more variety. Now, this choice would have to be balanced in zots vs other features as with anything going into the game (it doesn't mean much to me and I probably wouldn't use it, but others might), but just going by the fact that this has and does appear in all kinds of other games that work just fine mechanically in both views, I'd say it wouldn't take much.
"Both suffer"? How could including more than one camera angle possibly make the game "suffer"? That's like calling GT or Forza terrible racing games in comparison to Mario Kart, because the former have 1st and 3rd person viewpoints and the latter doesn't. Or that Battlefront or SOCOM games have been inferior to their contemporaries for the same reason (all games in those series have both 1st and 3rd person). Please, continue, with examples preferably.
The ridiculous crusade the RPGtards in this place conduct against anything that could be associated with FPS or the "COD crowd" is simply mind boggling to me.
Just think of the gameplay vids for those. It's a fair bet that most would only have like 5% of any given video featuring the actual face of the LI. The rest…well…you know.
I certainly do.
The only thing which should be first person in games like these is the sex scenes.
I'm shocked that what I took for an obvious troll thread has turned into an actual discussion.
I know some people enjoy FPS mechanics. I don't, but I understand some do.
I don't understand how people ask for first person view in BioWare RPGs in the name of immersion. Never in BioWare games are you playing yourself. You're playing the first human SPECTRE; the last Spirit Monk; the Hero of Fereldan; or the Champion of Kirkwall. Hell, since they started having fully voiced leads, Shepard, Hawke, and the Inquisitor have been even more defined than they would previously have been. BioWare lets us make some decisions in their story. You're always playing their character in your chosen way.
I've always kind of felt that first person view was an unfortunate hold over from an era when detailed character models just weren't feasible. People got used to playing with the FP perspective, enjoyed it, and here we are today. It's fine, and certainly has its place. I hope they don't waste ME development time and resources on including it, though. That's time and money that could instead be turned into game content or more polished presentation.
FPS does still have some benefits beyond just immersion. Mostly that the flow of combat can work differently compared to a TPS, even one not based on combat. Many of the fast paced arena shooters of the 90s like Quake and Unreal Tournament wouldn't work as well in third person.
Though I still don't see the need to make Mass Effect first person. Of course, I also don't think there is anything preventing us from doing it. Just that I don't think they should bother spending the time implementing it.
FPS does still have some benefits beyond just immersion. Mostly that the flow of combat can work differently compared to a TPS, even one not based on combat. Many of the fast paced arena shooters of the 90s like Quake and Unreal Tournament wouldn't work as well in third person.
Though I still don't see the need to make Mass Effect first person. Of course, I also don't think there is anything preventing us from doing it. Just that I don't think they should bother spending the time implementing it.
Retour en haut