Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

DA:I Tactical View combat feedback > IE spiritual successor PoE combat feedback. Can't have that!

IndiraLightfoot

By IndiraLightfoot
in Backer Beta Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Lephys

Lephys

Posted
Posted

The thing is, it is not even a shooter. Because the game basically does everything for you. You lock targets and fire something that goes into direction of enemy. That is not a shooter, that some something else. And cover system is standard of games like Assassin Creed, not real shooters.

... What? o_O

 

I don't recall ever locking targets in ME3, and I played it a lot. And yeah, for the record, I could complain about a lot of things in that game, but raw gameplay is not one of them. I enjoyed the crap out of actually playing that game, even if I didn't enjoy all the stuff in-between, etc.

 

The parabolic ability-aiming was deceptively simple, yet elegant. I really think they could've done a whole lot more with that (and with ability upgrade trees/branching, etc.). But, still, at its core, 'twas quite fun. Especially cooperatively with other people.

 

I'm actually really looking forward to DA:I multiplayer.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
war:head

war:head

Posted
Posted

 

The thing is, it is not even a shooter. Because the game basically does everything for you. You lock targets and fire something that goes into direction of enemy. That is not a shooter, that some something else. And cover system is standard of games like Assassin Creed, not real shooters.

I don't recall ever locking targets in ME3 

 

That's because it doesn't (on PC but who in their right mind would play a shooter on a console...).

The only things that had a kind of soft lock on were, as you mentioned, some of the biotic projectiles like Throw and Warp which would allow you to arc them around and over obstacles which was pretty amazing in itself. 

 

Also, some weapons had a (very) limited homing ability like the GPS and homing grenades (obviously) and the Krysae had explosive proximity ammo. That's about it.

 

---

 

Oh, and a general side note on the cover system in ME3: If you're regularly using hard cover in ME3 you're playing the game wrong.*

 

* Unless you're going against a Prime or Atlas and are not hosting the game. 

  • Like 2

There is a road that I must travel
Let it be paved or unseen
May I be hindered by a thousand stones
Still onward I'd crawl down on my knees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
constantine

constantine

Posted
Posted

Heh! You're right that I do offer some bizarre-comparisons at times. However, the reasons for them are varied.

 

The T:ToN xp system was more of an act of desperation - and a will to shake stuff up a bit- because of the locked positions and of my frustration of not having an IE-like xp system in PoE. So, I went the other route instead: heavy RPG-ist, with openings for justifying discovery xp and such.

 

DA2 was something I got a link for over at the Codex, and it immediately dawned on me that the signs of DA2 being rushed listed there actually fit PoE BB - that it had been rushed too. That stuff hadn't been thoroughly tested or thought-through.

 

WL2 is more me waving a reality check: This uses the same kind of budget, the same kind of Unity build (all 3D, though) - and it shows that you don't need to over-complicate stuff to get a really good incline party-based CRPG.

 

Finally, in this case, I find that DA:I actually has an optional feature (tactical view) that's more BG-IE-correct and even updated for 2014 than PoE BB, which is a bit unfortunate, since this is where PoE needs to excel.

 

However, when it comes to comparisons to the real McCoy, I'm safe in the knowledge that you do that stuff thoroughly and excellently.

 

I simply rotate stuff, offer new angles, and other perspectives in order to get a few glittering flakes in the pan - rare ideas that PoE will benefit from in the long run. So, I stir up food for thought and debate, and sometimes it actually works too. :)

 

 

 

I'm with you on this matter.

 

And god I'd hate it if DA:I's combat is better than PoE's   :banghead: 

 

 

 

 

On a final and less relevant note, I'm also boycotting Bioware since after ME3

Matilda is a Natlan woman born and raised in Old Vailia. She managed to earn status as a mercenary for being a professional who gets the job done, more so when the job involves putting her excellent fighting abilities to good use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Matt516

Matt516

Posted
Posted

Comparing PoE to DA:I is silly. The latter has a budget of like a bazillion dollars, and the former is a Kickstarter RPG.

 

Not that they don't need to get combat feedback worked out - they do - but it probably won't be as feature-laden as DA:I just due to the type of game and the budget difference.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lephys

Lephys

Posted
Posted

That was enough, lock with spells and unFPS cover system made the game a bad shooter. It was something in the middle and it was bad version of both worlds

I don't understand. Cover makes a game not a shooter? Do people in reality who shoot at one another not employ cover for the purpose of avoiding death?

 

Also, if you can still miss with abilities, then why does it matter if you can target-lock or not? "Oh, you can shoot bullets, but then that TELEKINESIS your person can use on other people doesn't have to be manually aimed at their face... so it's no longer a good shooter, u_u..."

 

And lastly, I'm sorry, but shooter-RPGs are one of the least-tapped cross-genres I know of. Out of all of them, ME3 did it pretty well, even if it didn't do other stuff very well. I love that there are plenty of action RPGs, but the second you make it a shooter, everyone's got fountains and fountains of negativity for it, like it's inherently a terrible idea.

  • Like 1

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lephys

Lephys

Posted
Posted

I don't know how you don't understand, it's pretty simple really. He's saying that it's neither a good 3PS, nor a good RPG.

Yeah. That's 'cause it's a good hybrid.

 

That's like saying Jello sucks because it's neither a good liquid, nor a good solid. *eyeroll*

 

To re-iterate, this isn't about the whole game being entirely good or entirely bad. But "dedicated shooters with no RPG elements have much better purely shooty mechanics" is not an objective argument towards the conclusion that ME3's sheer gameplay was bad, or that the whole game was bad because of that. The only thing I can fault the game for is the actual RPG side, not the function of science-magic in combat, or the existence of mind-boggling cover.

 

I'm with other people. I played the game on Insanity, and if you think the whole game was just "take cover, then keep taking pot shots 'til you win," I don't know what difficulty you played on.

 

*Note: "You" above is being used generally, as in "whomever you are, if you think that," not specifically "you, the last person who posted" or any other particular person.

Should we not start with some Ipelagos, or at least some Greater Ipelagos, before tackling a named Arch Ipelago? 6_u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
archangel979

archangel979

Posted
Posted

 

I don't know how you don't understand, it's pretty simple really. He's saying that it's neither a good 3PS, nor a good RPG.

Yeah. That's 'cause it's a good hybrid.

 

That's like saying Jello sucks because it's neither a good liquid, nor a good solid. *eyeroll*

 

To re-iterate, this isn't about the whole game being entirely good or entirely bad. But "dedicated shooters with no RPG elements have much better purely shooty mechanics" is not an objective argument towards the conclusion that ME3's sheer gameplay was bad, or that the whole game was bad because of that. The only thing I can fault the game for is the actual RPG side, not the function of science-magic in combat, or the existence of mind-boggling cover.

 

I'm with other people. I played the game on Insanity, and if you think the whole game was just "take cover, then keep taking pot shots 'til you win," I don't know what difficulty you played on.

 

*Note: "You" above is being used generally, as in "whomever you are, if you think that," not specifically "you, the last person who posted" or any other particular person.

 

That is your opinion, mine is that is sucked as it was a bad result. I play both RPGs and FPS games and ME2 and ME3 were just worse than both.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
war:head

war:head

Posted
Posted

That was enough, lock with spells and unFPS cover system made the game a bad shooter. It was something in the middle and it was bad version of both worlds

 

So, because ~5 out of 80+ abilities have soft lock (for a proper reason) and this third person shooter has an unFirst Person Shooter cover system it is a bad shooter? You sure have thought that one through...

There is a road that I must travel
Let it be paved or unseen
May I be hindered by a thousand stones
Still onward I'd crawl down on my knees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
archangel979

archangel979

Posted
Posted

 

That was enough, lock with spells and unFPS cover system made the game a bad shooter. It was something in the middle and it was bad version of both worlds

 

So, because ~5 out of 80+ abilities have soft lock (for a proper reason) and this third person shooter has an unFirst Person Shooter cover system it is a bad shooter? You sure have thought that one through...

 

No, I played it. And as a fan of RPGs and FPS games this gameplay sucked badly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...