BioWare: Mass Effect 3 Combat Perfected

[Skops]

combat perfect? Yeah I doubt that..

 

[Ian Caronia]

The RPG-crowd are gonna hate it though. "It's justed a dumbed down shooter now! Ruined forever! Waaah!

Heh.

... and we will be right. The series is supposed to be an RPG series, not an action game series.

Supposed to be, huh?

How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? How do you decide what a particular release is "supposed" to be? How is that your decision to make? I suspect what you meant to say was, "It was supposed to be tailored to my tastes."

http://kotaku.com/#!5186448/mass-effect-2-is-a-shooter-rpg
http://n4g.com/news/464683/mass-effect-2-the-greatest-rpg-ever-made
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/11/mass-effect-2-wins-goty-rpg-story-awards-at-dice-2011/

Mate, when you say your product is meant to be an RPG, and people think of it as an RPG, and it wins awards for being an RPG, then it's meant to be an RPG.
And, in fact, it isn't. Bioware won't even hide that fact anymore.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

If they can nail the story and RPG elements from the first Mass Effect and slightly improve the combat from ME2, Mass Effect 3 may just be the best game ever made.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Ugh, I think I'm going to stay away from the forums section of ME3 news from now on.

So many bile spewing, self entitled, RPG purists...

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

I hope they also made the RPG elements a bit more deep. ME1 was a bit too much RPG, and ME2 was a liiiitle bit too little RPG.

Hopefully they find that perfect middle ground with the 3rd game.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Oh great, cue the incessant pissing and moaning about how ME isn't supposed to be a shooter but an RPG, how this ruins the franchise, Bioware is now a sellout to EA, and other completely bat-shit overreactions.

*looks back over 2 pages*

Dammit, looks like it's already well underway.

 

[Irridium]

Forgive me but...what do you mean "not what you would choose?"

I've played Mass Effect 1 at least 10 times and Mass Effect 2 4 times, and I can't think of more than a handful of dialogue options where I was being railroaded into making a choice that I didn't want to make (confrontation with VS on Horizon being a notable one). I've always been able to play Shepard with the choices that I would want to make.

The side-missions were fine. I was mainly referring to the main story, which did not offer very much chances(or really any) for roleplaying.

Mass Effect is like a straight line. On this line are branches that do not impact the main story. No matter what you do in ME1, ME2's main story still plays out the same. Your choices on side things only influence more side things, nothing influences the main story.

As opposed to, say, Alpha Protocol, who's story evolved based on your choices. It had a basic story, but you could heavily influence it. And so many things changed based on your choices it was just ridiculous.

Its has a basic line, but it can be formed, twisted, changed, folded, branched away and back, and just changed.

And then there's games like Mount and Blade, which instead of going for a set story, instead just provide the world, and have you make your own story.

These have no line, and you can progress however you damn well please.

Mass Effect would be an Adventure game with RPG elements, Alpha Protocol would be a combination of many elements from many genres.

And Mount and Blade would be a "pure" RPG.

Hopefully that made sense.

 

[Freechoice]

Oh, so it's gonna have blindfire, quicker weapon swaps and animations that don't suck?

Ha ha ha, no.

 

[tlozoot]

Ergh. The sense of entitlement from certain RPG purists is almost sickening.

Yes, ME2 cut back a little too much on the customisation elements (I wont call them RPG elements because the term seems to mean something different to everyone), but, whether you like it or not, Mass Effect always has been a hybrid shooter and RPG. Bioware has already stated that they're expanding the RPG elements for the third instalment. Now that they mention they're refining the shooter elements in the game - a sizeable portion of the experience - RPG purist across the interwebz are taking up their +4 swords of entitlement and boo-hooing their way across forums everywhere.

I hope ME3 has more RPG elements in it than ME2 did, I really do, but I also welcome a refining of its shooter elements. Perhaps some people would prefer to sit through the game and roll a dice every time a monster appears. Personally, I'd prefer to have a mix of tightly controlled third-person cover based shooting, mixed with cross-character powers and abilities to micro-manage, topped off with an intriguing story where you choices have a tangible effect. Looks like I'll be getting what I want anyway.

Bioware have already said they're expanding RPG elements as well as tightening up the shooting. Why is this a bad thing?

You could bottle some of this elitism and use it as one very potent poison.

 

[ryai458]

Yeah, not exactly looking forward to it.

In ME2, you were just as accurate and your guns were just as strong at the end as they were at the beginning. You did not get more accurate, your guns didn't get stronger, they stayed the same from beginning to end. There was no sense of progression, no sense of getting stronger. Yeah you got a couple of new guns/powers to play around with, but they didn't really change up combat. Like, at all. You still stayed behind cover and shot dudes who poked their heads out(or casted your powers, depending on your class). The only two classes that were fun to play were Vanguard(who can charge everywhere) and the Infiltrator class(can turn invisible). And even then it was still pretty "meh".

In Mass Effect 1, you start out with ass guns, ass stats, ass armor, and pretty much just ass everything. But as you progress, you get better. Your weapons get better. Your skills get better. Your team gets better. You have an actual sense of progression. At the start I had to fire in bursts and couldn't cast much powers. By the end I could fire for 2 minutes without the gun overheating(not counting the "overload" power, which boosts accuracy/lowers heating up even more), my guns were super-accurate, I had such beefy armor I was like a tank. I went from "standard soldier" to "uber-badass". And it was great.

You also learn how the combat works. At the start you'll fumble around, but then you'll learn it. Learn when to use your powers, when take your shots, everything. You get better, Shepard gets better, you both get better at the same time and it just gives a sense of immersion that no other game has ever given me. Most people try to play Mass Effect 1 as a straight up shooter. Casting powers all at once, running in, ect. and I think thats why there was so much hate for it.

Mass Effect 1 is not a shooter. It is an RPG(although that in itself is debatable) with shooter elements. If you play it as a tactical RPG, pausing while playing, issuing orders, managing powers, ect. the game's combat gets great, fun, and interesting.

In ME2 you start out as "so-so badass" and just stay that way through the whole game. You don't get better, don't get more accurate, don't improve your guns(all the guns are basically side-grades instead of upgrades). There just isn't any sense of progression. Yeah you level up and get a bit more powers, but they all have the same cooldown for some stupid reason, so you'll cast one, then wait for everything to recharge, and then do it again. Its boring.

Again, ME1 is not a shooter. If you don't like that, then guess what? The game is not for you. This is not a bad thing, it just means this game is not for you.

ME2 is a shooter. I guess it would be an action adventure, since it has essentially no role-playing. Same with Mass Effect 1, only ME1 is just adventure with shooter elements. Again, ME2 being more shooter-like isn't bad per-say, its just boring as hell to me.

Also ME1 had infinite ammo. And no matter how you say it, I don't see how going from unlimited ammo to limited ammo is an upgrade. Especially if you like sniping, in which case you'll be running out of ammo very quickly and have to just go up the front lines and fight Gears of War style anyway. Or sit in an area where the ammo things constantly respawn, which completely undermines the new ammo mechanic.

And another thing, I seem to be one of the very few people who think naturally moving in/out of cover is better then pressing A to stick yourself to a wall. In ME1 if you want to take cover you go up to a wall, and Shepard automatically gets into cover. In ME2 you have to tell him to do it. I guess TIM didn't fully repair his brain if he doesn't have the sense to get into cover when getting shot.

And that is why I liked ME1's combat much more than ME2's. Hopefully ME3 brings back the sense of progression, but from what I hear I doubt it.

Obviously you didn't do the mining and upgrade your guns making them and you more powerful.

 

[Vaer]

As someone who absolutely adored KOTOR, Mass Effect 1 and 2, and Dragon Age 1 & 2, I'm honestly not seeing these supposedly major "downfalls."

I'm perfectly willing to grant that Mass Effect 2 was too heavily streamlined in the RPG aspects but that's about the only concession I'm willing to make. The third person shooting mechanics in ME1 were mediocre at best, especially when compared to the hyper-refined Gears of War.

As for Dragon Age 2, which receives an awful lot of hate...while the game certainly has quite a few faults (Kirkwall is one boring place), after playing 40 hours of it I have to call BS on anyone who says that the combat has been dumbed down. The stats are still incredibly in-depth and the cross-class-combos are brilliant.

I don't know, maybe it's because I'm not an RPG purist but I simply don't see how Bioware is being ruined, and I certainly don't blame EA for every little fault.

I'm no RPG purist but Dragon Age 2 was by far the worse game Bioware has EVER released, EVER .. the game is piss easy except for the fact that the enemies have a lot of goddamn health, but that's not really the problem, most of the dialog apart from the main story is kind of bad, the story had potential and it was well written for parts of it but it just fell apart in the last chapter, it was rushed and unfinished, it reused the same areas over and over and over and over and over ... not even an indie game could get away with something like this let alone a big budget title such as DA2 it was an insult, a spit in the face to anyone that bough the game "Here have this half finished, copy pasted release and give us the full price for it, then pay us some more for dlc to play the full game", it had less attention put in it then the expansion to the first one (Awakening), hell I've seen more detailed dlc, a lot of the questing felt like an mmo and that you were doing them just for the sake of questing and not for the quests themselves, sure there were a few good ones, even great but they are few in number.

There were also far less skills and the camera zoom was just stupidly low and with no good reason. Hell, even they realized how much they fucked up and are actually giving a copy of ME2 for anyone that buys the game.

It's not so much that it was horrible ( personally I'd give it a 7-7.5 )but it was unfinished and mediocre at best, if it had stayed in development for 2 more years it could have been good but hey... greed is nice and why not work less for the same price, right ?
Mass Effect 2 I liked a lot, but it had problems and the direction that ME is taking isn't good, it wasn't supposed to be a shooter and it isn't supposed to compete with the big shooters, it should focus more on the story, characters, dialog and locations and less on ooo look at the explosions and action... action, action, action!!!

 

[Undeadpool]

I recently went back to ME1 and I have to say that combat is REALLY dull. I was playing it on Hardcore, the second highest tier, and able to literally stand in the middle of whatever battlefield we were on and snipe enemies with total impunity. There was rarely a sense of intensity, peril, or even danger. It was just lining up targets and pulling a trigger. So something in between that and ME2 might be good, I still do want the skill progression as it makes a HUGE difference on higher difficulties, but if they just keep the combat itself the same while providing better AI, I really don't see a downside.

 

[Toasty Virus]

I remember reading that in those magazine scans that hit the net awhile back. Sounds good to me.

The RPG-crowd are gonna hate it though. "It's justed a dumbed down shooter now! Ruined forever! Waaah!

Heh.

well the RPG crowd i hang out with didn't hate the combat system in ME2 but the reduction in character development. But since Bioware promised to change that in ME3 I am really looking forward to this.

Reduction in character development? ME2 had MASSIVELY developed characters.

OT: I'm glad, This game looks better every update!

 

[JeanLuc761]

Forgive me but...what do you mean "not what you would choose?"

I've played Mass Effect 1 at least 10 times and Mass Effect 2 4 times, and I can't think of more than a handful of dialogue options where I was being railroaded into making a choice that I didn't want to make (confrontation with VS on Horizon being a notable one). I've always been able to play Shepard with the choices that I would want to make.

The side-missions were fine. I was mainly referring to the main story, which did not offer very much chances(or really any) for roleplaying.

Mass Effect is like a straight line. On this line are branches that do not impact the main story. No matter what you do in ME1, ME2's main story still plays out the same. Your choices on side things only influence more side things, nothing influences the main story.

As opposed to, say, Alpha Protocol, who's story evolved based on your choices. It had a basic story, but you could heavily influence it. And so many things changed based on your choices it was just ridiculous.

Its has a basic line, but it can be formed, twisted, changed, folded, branched away and back, and just changed.

And then there's games like Mount and Blade, which instead of going for a set story, instead just provide the world, and have you make your own story.

These have no line, and you can progress however you damn well please.

Mass Effect would be an Adventure game with RPG elements, Alpha Protocol would be a combination of many elements from many genres.

And Mount and Blade would be a "pure" RPG.

Hopefully that made sense.

Hmmmm...you make a good case but I personally think it's a little premature to judge just how much of a difference the choices make. While it's completely possible that the story choices I make amount to little more than a side character making a re-appearance, I'm very optimistic that Bioware will use Mass Effect 3 to go all-out with the choices you made in previous games and deliver some genuine impact.

For example, if the Mass Effect 2 squadmates come back for sizable roles, it will be pretty phenomenal to see how the storyline is adjusted to fit with who survived the ending of Mass Effect 2.

Say for example that Legion was killed on the Suicide Mission and this ends up leading to the Geth being unwilling to cooperate with the quarians or even refusing to help against the Reapers. Now THAT would be something.

 

[Irriduccibilli]

Now you see, combat in a shooter can never be perfected until there is NO. GODDAMN. COVER. BASED. SHOOTING!!! (or third person view). The only non-platformer shooter I consider to have truly good combat with either (or in this case, both) of the aforementioned mechanics is Gears of War.

Mass Effect has awful, tedious and extremely easy combat (even on the hardest setting) and when it isn't ridiculously easy, its just frustrating and stupid because you can be clever about how you do it -- there are no vantage points or tactically advantageous positions -- just cover.
Popping in and out of cover. for 5-8 hours. with occasional breaks for cutscenes.
Why do game developers think it is fun? WHY?

...God, Mass Effect is overrated.

/rage

I believe you should read the article one more time, because it looks like you didnt understand what it just told you about

 

[Stevepinto3]

I remember reading that in those magazine scans that hit the net awhile back. Sounds good to me.

The RPG-crowd are gonna hate it though. "It's justed a dumbed down shooter now! Ruined forever! Waaah!

Heh.

They already said it's going to have deeper RPG elements than the second game. I don't see why it has to be this toss-up between the two. There have been games in the past that have mixed the two beautifully like Deus Ex and System Shock 2.

I'd really like if they went back to the first games health system, a standard health bar and a regenerating shield. When it all just regenerates it's a lot less interesting and you just end up sitting behind cover for most of the game.

This was especially annoying on the higher difficulties in ME2. They weren't really that challenging (I blew through almost everything on Insanity except one fight in the Shadow Broker DLC), but you would pop out of cover and your shields would drop in a second or less because that's the only way it can be made challenging. You have to either get killed in seconds flat or you regen to full health and everything is reset.

I'd also like to see traditional cover combat that's not ALL about the cover. A game where you might spend a portion of the fight moving around and not sitting behind a wall, you know, action? I better end this here before I rant any further.

 

[tlozoot]

Snip

Really, I think we'll have to look to see what the third games does to see whether ME really does offer a malleable story. However, I'm optimistic, simply because of all the things that we did have a say in in the past two games.


Are the rachni still around?
Did you fuck over the council or not?
Who did you put on the council?
Destroy the Collector Base or no?
Did you kill Wrex (seems not killing him leads to a more stabilised Krogan society)
Kaidan or Ashley (probably not a significant choice)
Keep genophage cure data during Mordin's loyalty mission or no
Reprogram or eradicate the heretics?
End project Overlord or not? (Might do nothing seeing as it was DLC)
Did you egg the Quarian's on to war or not?
Did you romance anyone?
Did you cheat on anyone?
Who is still alive after the suicide mission?

It seems that these big choices in 1/2 will need to have some kind of tangible effect on the third game. Perhaps it will still end the same way, but the route in which you get there, I would think, is going to depend, to varying degrees, on these things.

 

[JourneyThroughHell]

Also ME1 had infinite ammo. And no matter how you say it, I don't see how going from unlimited ammo to limited ammo is an upgrade. Especially if you like sniping, in which case you'll be running out of ammo very quickly and have to just go up the front lines and fight Gears of War style anyway. Or sit in an area where the ammo things constantly respawn, which completely undermines the new ammo mechanic.

Hey, I agree with that one thing in your post... and NOTHING else.

If ME1 was an RPG, it was a terrible, terrible one, with combat that doesn't even deserve to be mentioned among the likes of KoToR and Gothic 3, or with other TPS games for that matter.

My opinion, of course, but you have to remember that me being fairly distant from RPGs has little to do with my opinion of Mass Effect. So I'm not just hating here.

OT: PR talk, moving on.

 

[ecoho]

I remember reading that in those magazine scans that hit the net awhile back. Sounds good to me.

The RPG-crowd are gonna hate it though. "It's justed a dumbed down shooter now! Ruined forever! Waaah!

Heh.

... and we will be right. The series is supposed to be an RPG series, not an action game series.

I could be wrong, but I am expecting that Bioware might very well be in for something of a surprise here. Bioware loves to sit down and talk about the "critical reception" they have received and all the praise for the directions they have chosen, but the reality has increasingly been far differant. I still remember how they asked fans whether we would support the idea of them having a very pre-scripted protaganist with little customization for "Dragon Age II" if it meant he was fully voiced, the answer was a resounding "no" and then Bioware turned around and tried to say that the response was positive and it's what we wanted.

With "Mass Effect 2" they sold so many copies because of the success of the first game, it was largely due to pre-orders and first day sales like most games. The negative backlash was mostly from people who already had paid for the game. Saying that they were such a tiny minority "because of the sales" misses the entire way the industry and it's business model works.

I'm not saying that shooter fans won't like the game, and it won't be a decent success, but it is definatly a continued backstabbing of the RPG fans who lost their game series, and I suspect that this is going to have a surprising amount of influance on it's sales.

Interestingly one of the things about "Mass Effect" is that the storyline is interesting enough where I think there are plenty of people who will hate the game, but will buy it just to see how things turn out. That may or may not include me, depending on exactly how repugnant the gameplay is when it comes out, I'm not into high octane masochism. Sadly I think that this fact will further retard the results, and probably lead many to believe that the game changes have support that they really don't.

Only time will tell, but yeah, I think this one is going to result in some nastiness. I also think Bioware might be facing some serious backlash from the way they operate even if this game does succeed. You can only slap your core fan base so many times before they decide to slap back so to speak.

ok to be truthfull it was NEVER suposed to be just an RPG, it was sold as an epic story action RPG. Also dont go bitching just yet about ME3 see as they are bringing back alot of the RPG eliments which will make it a better game. Now i love both games for different reasons 1 had better biotic combat and the custmization,and 2 had better combat, no mako, no cluster fuck inventory(i do miss the custumization but if thats what it took to get rid of that horrible interface so be it), and it did what the second chapter should it set up for the theird while reminding us about stuff we did in the first.

All in all ME3 WILL be better then both because it seems like theyve found balance.

BTW DA2 is a different team so stop saying bioware has sold their soul to EA and that every game will be like DA2!

 

[Dango]

I guess that means I'll be playing ME3 for the story (I didn't like the combat in ME2, very shallow and hastily thrown together), that is, unless they decide to ramp up Shepard's asshole level even more. Or if the writing gets even worse. Or if there's even more scripted, non-selectable, dialog. Or if they put even less effort into writing a decent antagonist. Or if they once again make the cast a bland mix of "they show this character trait, but they're really this character trait." Or if they give you an even smaller sense of scale and discovery. Or if they make even poorer use of the fact that their setting is an entire galaxy.

See where I'm going with this?