Ce sujet est fermé
Mass Effect 2 is my favorite game. If my 50+ guide videos don't show that, nothing will. I've done many play throughs, with both genders, both paragon/renegade, on every difficulty from normal to NG+ insanity. Reading the presentation notes from Christina Norman on the game play design of mass effect 2 has made me think about a few things, a few things that are slightly confusing.
It's clear that the Mass Effect team is full of very smart and very self-aware people. They saw that Mass Effect 1 had some gameplay problems. In an effort to make a Shooter/RPG hybrid, they ended up making a game with shooter elements that in their mind and in the mind of critics, were not up to the standards they wanted. Abilities, particularly biotic abilities, seemed to provide the player who knew how to use them with far less of a challenge than those who played classes that were more focused on shooting.
With that in mind, the team approached Mass Effect 2 from a fix shooting first. And fix it they did. Mass Effect 2 is a fantastic shooting game. No matter what class a player selects, she or he will experience a well-designed, effective, shooter.
In the presentation, very little is mentioned about abilities. Universal cooldowns are briefly mentioned, and that they were designed to speed up the game play. But beyond that, not much else. I am not naive enough to say that abilities were somehow an after-thought. Not as powerful does not mean not thought out. Abilities were very much thought out; what people don't like are the conclusions that seem to have been reached about them.
From the presentation, its clear that the designers wanted to make a game that was more challenging and more player skill based than Mass Effect 1. To that end, they seem, from the presentation and the game, to have determined two things: 1) Using an ability does not take as much skill as having to aim and fire a weapon, so it should not be rewarded as much as aiming and firing a weapon, and 2) Abilities in total must be used less frequently (in total) and do less damage than weapons, because the player should be rewarded for skill and not button mashing.
Look at the overall most useful abilities in the game: Adrenaline Rush, Cloak, Tech Armor, and Charge. All of these abilities have one thing in common: They help the player do more damage using guns, either directly or indirectly. Combat Drone and Singularity also assist in shooting to some extent because they can knock any target out of cover.
It works. Mass Effect 2 is faster paced, more dynamic, more fun, and all around, from a game play perspective
From the nature of how abilities target and work in the mass effect universe, it makes sense.
An Issue with ME2:
So why am I confused?
After watching this presentation, I'm forced to ask myself a question: What is the, from a game play perspective,
Sentinel is deceptive: It is really more of an inverse soldier using abilities instead of ammo powers, but is still, from the beginning, set up to use guns since it can stay out of cover and take so much punishment.
Back to my question: What is the
What they have is crowd control effects. However, all classes possess extensive crowd control measures already, through their guns and ammo types. If any class can perform that crowd control role, then what is the role of the Adept or Engineer in a fight?
This is why no ability does much damage on its own to health, which enemies have far more of than defense. If they did, then players could simply hit buttons without doing much in the aiming or taking risk by exposing herself or his self to enemy fire.
Here is An Illustration of the major shift between ME1 and ME2 when it comes to thinking about class gameplay, as evidenced by certain comments in the presentation. NOTE: This is NOT contained in the presentation. I came up with this entirely on my own from drawing some of the comments made about ME1 vs ME2 to their conclusion.
ME1, The triangle: (Intended play style, shooter/RPG hybird)
Soldier
/ \\
/ \\
/ \\
Vanguard Infiltrator
/ \\
/ \\
/ \\
Adept---Sentinel---Engineer
The Vanguard and Infiltrator are hybrids of the adept and engineer playstyle, the sentinel is a hybrid of the engineer and Adept.
The Squarish Mass Effect 2 (intended playstyle, shooter with some ability/rpg elements).
Soldier--------------Vanguard
| | \\
| | \\
| | Adept
| | /
| | /
Infiltrator-------------Sentinel
\\ /
\\ /
Engineer
The Infiltrator is not a hybrid of the Engineer and soldier, it is a different way to play a gun heavy class. Same with the Vanguard, and even the Sentinel. The Adept and Engineer derive their abilities from those other two classes, minus ammo powers, minus weapons training, plus a strong CC.
The presentation, more than anything, showed me why my videos are getting views: Its not because there is something inherently more interesting about Engineers and Adepts, its because the game design is not well suited to their strengths, and because of this, they are inherently more challenging to play effectively. They have to use guns they don't have; and their strengths in abilities are greatly diminished because abilities are secondary to gun use, by intention and design.
Now, one particular ability combination is extraordinarily strong, the Warp Explosion. And it makes sense why: If the player does it herself or his self, it will take some time to set up, since defenses must be penetrated, and if the player chooses to use allies, that requires some amount of forethought and skill to effectively time everything together, for which the player then receives the appropriate reward of increased effectiveness. However, this is the only case. In addition, this combo is not unique to any class, since squad mates can do the entire action themselves. Adepts, sentinels, and vanguards can all have a direct role in the damage, but just because the adept can either perform the setup or the detonation does not really mean it is substantially better than the other classes at using this ability.
Much of this has been said before. I saw the shortcomings of the classes while making the guide videos, but I persisted. I even did the entire suicide mission with no guns using my Adept. However, this presentation has made me realize that ultimately, teaching players to use abilities more is contrary to the entire design of the game. I'm essentially teaching people how to make a square fit in a circle. I want to play a game how its intended, and now as I look at my videos, I kind of want to go back, delete them all, and tell people to just get better at aiming. These classes simply don't make sense when looked at in context of the game.
Let me say that I did not want an all ability, no guns game for the Adept or Engineer. Far from it. From what I've played, it seems like the game has arrived and very good and powerful and unique skills for 4 of the 6 classes, all centered around increasing gun use. Ability based classes should have to shoot their guns, as Shepard is a soldier. However, they shouldn't have to shoot their guns as often or nearly as often as a a guns heavy class. As it stands, an Adept or Engineer player who wants to push their class to its peak has to essentially play like a guns-centered class, but without the benefit of powerful gun-assisting powers.
Also, don't think that I am somehow angry or bitter or that I don't find the engineer or adept fun. I think they are a blast to play. That doesn't mean they don't have a weaknesses significant enough to point out, and significant enough that its something that BioWare may want to at least talk about for Mass Effect 3.
One Solution for ME3 (out of many viable possibilities):
The problem can be summarized like this: Abilities are too easy to use and should not be rewarded as much for their use, however, this causes the ability heavy classes to be underpowered and not mesh well with the game design.
The answer could be in some additional element of aimed powers.
Think about this: Why is it that a throw, a warp, a pull, an incinerate, all possess the qualities of a super accurate heat seeking missile?
From an RP perspective, this makes no sense: How can an adept, barely seeing a target out of the corner of her or his eye, pop around that corner and instantly perfectly curve a warp at a target. Why can an engineer hit one button on her or his omni-tool and provided an enemy is somewhere in front, instantly overload their shields?
From a gameplay perspective, this power has to be weak. It would make the game incredibly easy otherwise, so therefore the killing power must be stripped.
But what if that wasn't how powers work? What if the player actually had to Aim a throw or a warp or an incinerate?
How this would work in game:
Shepard pops out from cover. The player then hits the ability button and holds it. A line appears from the player out straight in front, which can be curved or not, depending on the ability.
Suddenly an ability takes on the skill of use that a weapon does, which allows it to play a primary instead of a secondary role.
Lets take overload for example; right now, its an instant cast, quick hit ability. Lets try to preserve that aspect while adding some difficulty and some thought. Shepard selects the overload power, similar to how the weapons switch but it is instantaneous or near instantaneous. Shepard then emerges from cover and aims the overload at a nearby geth. A faint blue line emerges from the omnitool and paints the geth. Shepard then fires the ability. Instead of it instantly stripping shields, the player has to sustain the fire button. She or he can then sustain the power for a maximum of 3 seconds, but if the power is ended at any time, the player must wait 6 seconds before any other omni-tool ability can be used again. Or conversely, the player must charge the power for 2 seconds before it instantly springs and smashes the geth.
The Engineer who has taken the same risks as the soldier in exposure, and who faces the same challenge of aiming, can now be rewarded with the same kind of damage against the geth that a soldier with disruptor ammo would have.
Aimed powers result in a number of things: 1) A new, innovative method of playing games, and a new challenge for developers 2) A dynamic and exciting way to play any class 3) The feeling that no one class, because of the way it plays, needs to be weaker or stronger because they all are faced with more equitable challenges.
Therefore, all of the good things the team wanted to keep in Mass Effect 2 can be preserved, while the team also shore up the weaknesses pointed out in the GDC presentation.
I apologize for the length of this post. I know that this section of the forums is filled with a more thoughtful crowd and I didn't want to dumb anything down. I also know that BioWare does listen and read fan feedback, and I felt that I shouldn't put something out there that was dumbed down or simplified. Thank you for reading.
Modifié par Average Gatsby, 15 mars 2010 - 06:17 .
Retour en haut
). 
