10273 réponses à ce sujet

[uberdowzen]

Dudeman315 wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Dudeman315 wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...
Nope playing on PC (you can check in my profile). My issue was that you have to take your eyes off the action to check the quick slots. It's not much of an issue but it's still annoying.

What was the teamwork I said you had to use with enemy biotics?

I said earlier that you do need to use your team in ME2, for situations like I use lift and then someone else uses pull.

But it mostly doesn't matter because either your party is dead( unity slows down cooldown for incinerate) or they run around fine and kill everything without your control.

On Insanity my party was dead 90%+ of the time, and insome cases like the last room of the IFF mission made it easier.

Are you telling your squad to take cover? Also how is this any different than ME1? I can't count the number of times my squad has got slaughtered (at veteran) and I've had to finish up.

Yes I tell my squad to take cover which they do until they deside not to and I end up spending 90% of the fight micromanaging my squad because they won't stay still, or deceide to climb on top of the cover that they are supposed to be behind.
It's different because I can still use my other powers right before and right after unity, and my party rarly dies in ME1 ( I run with Wrex + Tali), but I EQUIP them to survive in me1(no way to up their armor or sheild max or regen rates etc. in ME2.)

Really? My companions die maybe once every half an hour, which is better than in ME1 (only by a bit though). ME2 does still have the problem that some of the boss fights etc just screw with the AI though.

[uberdowzen]

Kileyan wrote...

yes I do think individual cool downs are a better game mechanic. Less confusing isn't a reason to do otherwise. If a person cannot figure out 3 or 4 cooldowns they are just bad players. I do not mean they shouldn't be allowed to play the game if they can't use more than one cooldown, I mean they have the perfectly viable option to hit a key, pause the game, bring up the power wheel and figure out what to do when overwhelmed with the choice to use more than one power.

I know Bioware meant to make every skill usable, very often, but all they accomplished was someome using the same skill over and over.  Most every insanity vid I've ever seen is someone totally max invested in one skill, they hide behind cover and use it over and over. There is little reason to use any other skills since they only max out a few, and all are on the same timer.

Maybe I am overly simplifying things, but from what I have seen, everyone picks a favorite power to max and uses it over and over from cover. The only variation is they sometimes use a secondary power for specific husk encounters. The gameplay is almost exactly the same from beginning to end. Shared timers didn't encourage to use of powers, they just encouranged the use of mostly a single maxed power.

Hey ME2 was still great fun. I hope the 3rd installment will find the middle ground

Firstly, you have enough points to max out all but 2 skills (from memory, I've only actually had time to max out one character). Secondly, each skill has a specific use. Warp for instance, is only useful against 1 target (or a small cluster depending on what evolved version you picked) whereas shockwave takes out multiple enemies in a line (so you have to line it up to be effective). Some powers also take longer to cooldown.

Also even if people do use a single maxed out power, that's better than ME1 where I hardly ever use my powers. Adepts shouldn't need to use guns, but in ME1 they tend to have to.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 04 mai 2010 - 03:22 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Why not just go watch movie?

http://serenitysjour...ditation-02.jpg

Must find center. Must find center.

*takes in deep breath*



3-4 minute mark.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

http://serenitysjour...ditation-02.jpg

Must find center. Must find center.

*takes in deep breath*



3-4 minute mark.

Yeah, you already pointed that out. How does ME2 not fulfil that promise? You may have actually noticed that they were showing clips from ME2 in between the interviews.

[KalosCast]

uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, you already pointed that out. How does ME2 not fulfil that promise? You may have actually noticed that they were showing clips from ME2 in between the interviews.

Just ignore him, he's been crying this whole time because he has to aim and play the game now instead of just being able to spam unstoppable weapons or have Fallout 3 auto-hit mode.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, you already pointed that out. How does ME2 not fulfil that promise? You may have actually noticed that they were showing clips from ME2 in between the interviews.

Yeah I did, but you were the one who still told me to watch a movie. And I've explained a million times over how it didn't live up to the perfect ratio of ME1.

[SkullandBonesmember]

KalosCast wrote...

Just ignore him, he's been crying this whole time because he has to aim and play the game now instead of just being able to spam unstoppable weapons or have Fallout 3 auto-hit mode.

I don't know of any "auto hit mode" in FO3. There was plenty of aiming I did.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Yeah, you already pointed that out. How does ME2 not fulfil that promise? You may have actually noticed that they were showing clips from ME2 in between the interviews.

Yeah I did, but you were the one who still told me to watch a movie. And I've explained a million times over how it didn't live up to the perfect ratio of ME1.

I didn't tell you to watch a movie, I said if you're not playing for the interactive bits why not watch a movie? You seem to want a different game than what Bioware was trying to make.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Just ignore him, he's been crying this whole time because he has to aim and play the game now instead of just being able to spam unstoppable weapons or have Fallout 3 auto-hit mode.

I don't know of any "auto hit mode" in FO3. There was plenty of aiming I did.

Calling it Auto hit mode is a bit unfair, but whether you hit in FO3 isn't entirely down to your aim. When you shoot at an enemy, a "to hit" calculation take place to determine which body part of the enemy you hit. If you're aiming at, say, an arm you've got a greater chance of hitting the enemies arm but you could still miss and hit either another part of the enemy or miss entirely.

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Just ignore him, he's been crying this whole time because he has to aim and play the game now instead of just being able to spam unstoppable weapons or have Fallout 3 auto-hit mode.

I don't know of any "auto hit mode" in FO3. There was plenty of aiming I did.

Calling it Auto hit mode is a bit unfair, but whether you hit in FO3 isn't entirely down to your aim. When you shoot at an enemy, a "to hit" calculation take place to determine which body part of the enemy you hit. If you're aiming at, say, an arm you've got a greater chance of hitting the enemies arm but you could still miss and hit either another part of the enemy or miss entirely.

Do you even know what are you talking about. The regular combat in FO3 is about your aim and a normal to-hit calc.
What you are talking about is just VATs, a temporary mode. Beths version of adding flavor to combat.
"Auto hit mode" it is a feature for the game. Sort of like how Mark and Execute is a feature of SplinterCell Conviction. Except with VATs you don't do autokills through walls.

[Dick Delaware]

TJSolo wrote...
Do you even know what are you talking about. The regular combat in FO3 is about your aim and a normal to-hit calc.
What you are talking about is just VATs, a temporary mode. Beths version of adding flavor to combat.
"Auto hit mode" it is a feature for the game. Sort of like how Mark and Execute is a feature of SplinterCell Conviction. Except with VATs you don't do autokills through walls.

www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php

Fallout 3 Nexus wrote...
It is a common event in vanilla Fallout that one targets a target's
specific body part only to see his projectile being directed somewhere
else (usually the target's torso). This feature is known as Auto Aim.
This event naturaly causes people to try and get rid of it, thinking
that disabling it will cause the projectile to go where the
cursor is pointing.

This,
however, proved not to be the case, as the projectiles where then shot
completely off target. That is because auto aim's job is to allign
weapon
fire with the cursor.You might have noticed that sometimes,
when your hostile target is pretty far, the cursor doesn't become red
until you approach within a certain (small) distance.

This
change in color actually signifies that auto aim is activated (red
cursor). When auto aim is activated, YOU CAN TARGET A SPECIFIC BODY
PART IN ANY CAMERA MODE. Try it and see for yourself. The frustrating
part on the gaming aspect is the activation distance for Auto Aim is
pretty small, meaning you have to get pretty close to target a body
part.


All this mod does is to tweak the game setting
AutoAimMaxDistance from 1800 game units to 6000. This means that the
cursor will become red at 3 times the distance, enabling you to do that
nifty headshot

www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php

Fallout 3 Nexus wrote...
This small mod reduce the evil auto targetting feature that should be
useful when playing on a console with a gamepad, but is really annoying
on a PC with a mouse.

In fact, auto-aim is so prevalent, that the modder here had to make another update because it was so difficult to remove. I'm a little surprised you haven't noticed it. You haven't lined your scope up on a super mutant's head, only to miss completely or hit the torso? It's happened numerous times for me.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 04 mai 2010 - 05:38 .

[TJSolo]

That is the auto aim what Uber described was VATs.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

I didn't tell you to watch a movie, I said if you're not playing for the interactive bits why not watch a movie? You seem to want a different game than what Bioware was trying to make.

You just don't get it. Of COURSE I play for the "interactive bits". With how far video games have evolved, I LOVE when titles like Mass Effect and Heavy Rain are released. I kind of hate Persona, but their faults lie in cultural differences that don't translate well to the west, but games like those are really on the right track. Modern games where you can chose what to say, endings, even cutscenes in the middle of a playthrough that can vary on certain actions you take/dialogue you choose, THAT is the future of gaming, not headshots or 'SPLOSHUNS.

uberdowzen wrote...

Calling it Auto hit mode is a bit unfair, but whether you hit in FO3 isn't entirely down to your aim. When you shoot at an enemy, a "to hit" calculation take place to determine which body part of the enemy you hit. If you're aiming at, say, an arm you've got a greater chance of hitting the enemies arm but you could still miss and hit either another part of the enemy or miss entirely.

Are you thinking of the critical hit stat?

[uberdowzen]

TJSolo wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Just ignore him, he's been crying this whole time because he has to aim and play the game now instead of just being able to spam unstoppable weapons or have Fallout 3 auto-hit mode.

I don't know of any "auto hit mode" in FO3. There was plenty of aiming I did.

Calling it Auto hit mode is a bit unfair, but whether you hit in FO3 isn't entirely down to your aim. When you shoot at an enemy, a "to hit" calculation take place to determine which body part of the enemy you hit. If you're aiming at, say, an arm you've got a greater chance of hitting the enemies arm but you could still miss and hit either another part of the enemy or miss entirely.

Do you even know what are you talking about. The regular combat in FO3 is about your aim and a normal to-hit calc.
What you are talking about is just VATs, a temporary mode. Beths version of adding flavor to combat.
"Auto hit mode" it is a feature for the game. Sort of like how Mark and Execute is a feature of SplinterCell Conviction. Except with VATs you don't do autokills through walls.

How is VATS auto hit? There's still a chance you'll miss. Also, if you actually read my post, how is what I said about "Auto hit" any different from what you said? It's about your aim and a to hit calculation. Your aim will increase the chance of hitting that body part in the to hit calculation.

[TJSolo]

uberdowzen wrote...

How is VATS auto hit? There's still a chance you'll miss. Also, if you actually read my post, how is what I said about "Auto hit" any different from what you said? It's about your aim and a to hit calculation. Your aim will increase the chance of hitting that body part in the to hit calculation.

The poster brought up an "auto hit mode", the only mode I can think FO3 having was VATs. Auto aim, is entirely different and it is not a auto hit mode.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

You just don't get it. Of COURSE I play for the "interactive bits". With how far video games have evolved, I LOVE when titles like Mass Effect and Heavy Rain are released. I kind of hate Persona, but their faults lie in cultural differences that don't translate well to the west, but games like those are really on the right track. Modern games where you can chose what to say, endings, even cutscenes in the middle of a playthrough that can vary on certain actions you take/dialogue you choose, THAT is the future of gaming, not headshots or 'SPLOSHUNS.

I agree and disagree. My main problem with Mass Effect is that very few of your choices ended up actually affecting anything. Most playthroughs end up being pretty similar, for example, I was just playing ME1 and was on Noveria. I went out of my way to try and find a way of getting a garage pass that didn't involve Lorik Quinn and the only other one I found was telling on the Hanar to Anoleis (which my character wouldn't do).

I do think we need to see more games like Heavy Rain (and for the love of god don't make them PS3 exclusive) but they are not the only future of gaming. The greatest narrative experience I've had in gaming was in Half-Life 2 (a game that according to you is all about "headshots or 'SPLOSHUNS" and making fun of an obese kid) but the reason it was so good was because it perfectly integrated the action and the story. It didn't need a dynamic plot to be the best game ever.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

Calling it Auto hit mode is a bit unfair, but whether you hit in FO3 isn't entirely down to your aim. When you shoot at an enemy, a "to hit" calculation take place to determine which body part of the enemy you hit. If you're aiming at, say, an arm you've got a greater chance of hitting the enemies arm but you could still miss and hit either another part of the enemy or miss entirely.

Are you thinking of the critical hit stat?

No. I'm pretty sure that in Fallout 3 that you won't automatically hit if you aim and shoot at an enemy. There is still a to hit calculation going on to determine whether you hit (and if so which body part) or miss. I may be wrong but I seem to remember this being the case. Isn't that what the weapon skill determine?

[uberdowzen]

From the Fallout 3 FAQ on the Fallout Wiki:

Real-time FPS takes into account factors such as weapon condition
and a character's skill level in that weapon category, but accuracy
depends greatly on the player's skill in aiming the targeting reticule

Greatly, not entirely. I'm pretty sure that there is a to hit roll included in the Real-time FPS part of the combat, even though it's pretty minor.

From another FAQ I found on Gamespy:

The more action oriented crowd can approach combat in
FPS/Run-and-gun style. Aim, shoot and kill.
In run-and-gun, melee feels a lot like melee in Oblivion. If
you connect with the weapon, you hit. There's no die roll to determine
that. But your character's skill, as well as the condition of the
weapon, determine the damage done.
In run-and-gun, ranged combat is similar to Deus Ex 1.
Accuracy is affected by player skill and weapon condition - if you've
got e.g. a really high Small Guns skill and a perfect condition assault
rifle, your aim will be dead on. Low Small Guns and crappy assault
rifle, and you'll miss more. The skill and condition also affect the
damage you'll do.
With most ranged weapons in run-and-gun, you can also go into
an aim mode, which zooms you in and increases your accuracy. With Melee
and Unarmed weapons, the player will block instead of zooming in.

Modifié par uberdowzen, 04 mai 2010 - 06:14 .

[Massadonious1]

The future of gaming is whatever makes developers the most money, not what your biased personal prefrence is.

[SkullandBonesmember]

uberdowzen wrote...

The greatest narrative experience I've had in gaming was in Half-Life 2 (a game that according to you is all about "headshots or 'SPLOSHUNS" and making fun of an obese kid) but the reason it was so good was because it perfectly integrated the action and the story. It didn't need a dynamic plot to be the best game ever.

Yeah, well you think the combat to plot ratio implemented in ME2 was better over the original so I take that statement of yours with less than a grain of salt.

uberdowzen wrote...

No. I'm pretty sure that in Fallout 3 that you won't automatically hit if you aim and shoot at an enemy. There is still a to hit calculation going on to determine whether you hit (and if so which body part) or miss. I may be wrong but I seem to remember this being the case. Isn't that what the weapon skill determine?

When choosing how to spread your SPECIAL points in the beginning, one of them is for how often when you hit an enemy it will yield a critical hit, but even so, WHO CARES? The combat was great all the same.

Massadonious1 wrote...

The future of gaming is whatever makes developers the most money, not what your biased personal prefrence is.

Brought up the point before but seriously, just because a game has guns in it does not mean it HAS to play like a shooter. You're not entitled to every single game with guns. Just think of how it would be if the only genre of films directors and screen writers worked on was action movies? There's always going to be a demographic for comedies, drama, family, suspense, western, and sci fi. Same with different types of video games.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 04 mai 2010 - 06:15 .

[Brako Shepard]

Yes there are obviously different types of genres out there, but this is about a battle to save the entire galaxy from evil. Of course a game with guns in is going to have to be shooter heavy(unless its a HITMAN type game), its what they are armed with.



I really am starting to think you don't actually have a clue on what your talking about. And whilst people like debate on there opinions. I also don't see the point in always posting on a forum for a game you don't enjoy.

[uberdowzen]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

The greatest narrative experience I've had in gaming was in Half-Life 2 (a game that according to you is all about "headshots or 'SPLOSHUNS" and making fun of an obese kid) but the reason it was so good was because it perfectly integrated the action and the story. It didn't need a dynamic plot to be the best game ever.

Yeah, well you think the combat to plot ratio implemented in ME2 was better over the original so I take that statement of yours with less than a grain of salt.

And so your argument falls apart. When you have to fall back on implying that people who disagree with you are idiots, you fail. That was the point when you should have said to each his own.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

uberdowzen wrote...

No. I'm pretty sure that in Fallout 3 that you won't automatically hit if you aim and shoot at an enemy. There is still a to hit calculation going on to determine whether you hit (and if so which body part) or miss. I may be wrong but I seem to remember this being the case. Isn't that what the weapon skill determine?

When choosing how to spread your SPECIAL points in the beginning, one of them is for how often when you hit an enemy it will yield a critical hit, but even so, WHO CARES? The combat was great all the same.

Unh, I thought the combat was a bit too much running backwards away from mutated rodents while shooting. It was pretty good, but I don't think it was the highlight of that game.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

The future of gaming is whatever makes developers the most money, not what your biased personal prefrence is.

Brought up the point before but seriously, just because a game has guns in it does not mean it HAS to play like a shooter. You're not entitled to every single game with guns. Just think of how it would be if the only genre of films directors and screen writers worked on was action movies? There's always going to be a demographic for comedies, drama, family, suspense, western, and sci fi. Same with different types of video games.

Yes I completely agree and that's actually my main problem with Heavy Rain. It's got a really clever way of telling it's plot but the story it sets out to tell is an R18 murder mystery with guns!!!!! If it had tried to be clever and told maybe a political thriller or something than I might have been more interested. I also don't think that the way Heavy Rain achieved it's goals (essentially a series of quick time events) is something I really want to encourage. There is a way of telling these stories, but interactive cinematics is not it.

[Massadonious1]

Yeah, you're right. I totally feel entitled to every game being shooter-tastic. It's not like I played DA:O or anything like that. What part of my point did I even suggest such a thing?

We've had this discussion before, but let me make my point clear. I don't care what kind of games you like. I'm not even against the kind of games you like. However, I care that you seem to think that the games you do like are the only games people should play or should care about and everyone else who disagrees is some mindless shooter dork, represented by a mentally retarded fat kid that was photoshopped into swinging pistols.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 04 mai 2010 - 06:30 .

[KalosCast]

uberdowzen wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Just ignore him, he's been crying this whole time because he has to aim and play the game now instead of just being able to spam unstoppable weapons or have Fallout 3 auto-hit mode.

I don't know of any "auto hit mode" in FO3. There was plenty of aiming I did.

Calling it Auto hit mode is a bit unfair, but whether you hit in FO3 isn't entirely down to your aim. When you shoot at an enemy, a "to hit" calculation take place to determine which body part of the enemy you hit. If you're aiming at, say, an arm you've got a greater chance of hitting the enemies arm but you could still miss and hit either another part of the enemy or miss entirely.

Not really. The lowest I've ever seen VATS go is about 70-odd percent unless you're purposefully using something your character sucks at. Since each VATS action uses multiple dots, and your entire meter refills in seconds, there is no real combat that game. Also, since you have 90-odd% damage reduction while in VATS, you can just run up on any enemy so that your "to-hit" on head is 100%. Calling Fallout 3 anything more than auto-hit mode is a joke. Hell, Fallout 3 is a joke, you have to pay $10 (on top of your game purchase) for an ending that makes any narrative sense, they gave up a real ending in place of 'SPLOSHUNS! Not to mention one can just pour all their ability into a couple SPECIAL stats to become an unstoppable killing machine.

It's pretty obvious if you're holding up FO3 as a good RPG shooter, it's pretty obvious that you just suck at real gameplay and want your games to coddle you.

[Dick Delaware]

KalosCast is completely right. VATS is pretty much god mode. It's hilarious how broken it is.

However, in the interest of fairness, there are times where the chance to hit goes under 70%. If the guy is far away and you don't have proper perks like Sniper/Wired Reflexes, then the chance to hit is often under 70%. With perks however, it's usually very, very high.

Even if the chance to hit was low, the action points system and the 90% damage reduction means that all you have to do is wait behind an obstacle of some kind until your points refill, then go back into VATS until whatever you are targetting dies.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 04 mai 2010 - 06:47 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

Brako Shepard wrote...

Yes there are obviously different types of genres out there, but this is about a battle to save the entire galaxy from evil. Of course a game with guns in is going to have to be shooter heavy(unless its a HITMAN type game), its what they are armed with.

I really am starting to think you don't actually have a clue on what your talking about. And whilst people like debate on there opinions. I also don't see the point in always posting on a forum for a game you don't enjoy.

I'm well aware of what I'm saying, but it seems other can't grasp it. Who cares if the entire galaxy needs to be saved? See below.

Massadonious1 wrote...

Yeah, you're right. I totally feel entitled to every game being shooter-tastic. It's not like I played DA:O or anything like that. What part of my point did I even suggest such a thing?

We've had this discussion before, but let me make my point clear. I don't care what kind of games you like. I'm not even against the kind of games you like. However, I care that you seem to think that the games you do like are the only games people should play or should care about and everyone else who disagrees is some mindless shooter dork, represented by a mentally retarded fat kid that was photoshopped into swinging pistols.

Maybe you implied it with your entire sentence?

Massadonious1 wrote...

The future of gaming is whatever makes developers the most money, not what your biased personal prefrence is.

If every possible movie, music, TV, and book genres can turn a profit, there are things besides 'SPLOSHUNS that can turn a profit.

I've never said shooter games were "bad" in anyway. I'm bitter about Bioware doing one of the most retarded things possible and not giving players an OPTION to have a difficulty like casual through veteran from ME1.

KalosCast wrote...

Not really. The lowest I've ever seen VATS go is about 70-odd percent unless you're purposefully using something your character sucks at. Since each VATS action uses multiple dots, and your entire meter refills in seconds, there is no real combat that game. Also, since you have 90-odd% damage reduction while in VATS, you can just run up on any enemy so that your "to-hit" on head is 100%. Calling Fallout 3 anything more than auto-hit mode is a joke. Hell, Fallout 3 is a joke, you have to pay $10 (on top of your game purchase) for an ending that makes any narrative sense, they gave up a real ending in place of 'SPLOSHUNS! Not to mention one can just pour all their ability into a couple SPECIAL stats to become an unstoppable killing machine.

It's pretty obvious if you're holding up FO3 as a good RPG shooter, it's pretty obvious that you just suck at real gameplay and want your games to coddle you.

Does everybody here just happen to have Alzheimer's? Again, the only good thing about FO3 was the character creator and the combat. Nothing else.

And trust me, when you concentrate your stats focusing on your endurance and charm/persuasion, it can play against you with VATS.