179 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

Kirabi wrote...
How does driving on a blank planet immerse you more in the game?There is reason why ME uni has never gone to earth,The second they make earth a option people will realize how much of nothing there is to explore in ME games.Do know you much animals are in the ME game

Space Cows
Space Bettles
Thesher Maws
Gas Bags
Pyjaks
Pod crabs
Varren
Havesters
Klixen

and depending your opinion Rachni.They are about 19 clusters in ME2 each carrying any where from 3 planets to around 20 planets.I don't feel like counting but i guess ME2 has around 100-150 planets or more.You mean to tell me that they are only 8 animals.The illusion may have work on some of you guys but not me.I can send you to Antarctica,the Moon or Sahara to explore but they are all empty wastlelands.Exploring nothing is not fun and the illusion of Mass effect only work on people who are silly to believe that galaxy is empty and every planet is wastleland.

Very few animals
Almost no Alien structures that are non mission related

Please tell me what are you finding?In all the planets you have explored in ME1 and ME2 have you ever come across another alien just out in world when you are in the mako?

I will repeat myself i love real exploring neither of the Mass Effect has real exploring.Illusion of exploring is not exploring,Just go and play Oblivion then tell me if Mass effect exploring.ME is linear game that is shepard story that has to inculde enough of galaxy to make feel in you are in world,ME1 did a better job of making people feel they are in world but it was just an illusion.The only real exploring happen in the citadel in ME1.

I'm not really sure what your point here is. I can certainly get the point that there weren't really enough alien animals in the game, but that, to a certain degree, is due to the kinds of planets heavily featured in ME. If I recall correctly, out of the entirety of the planets visited in ME1 and ME2, there are a total of 6 garden worlds of the kind you'd find a wide ecosystem within. This isn't a matter of fake illusions or whatever, it's just the choice of worlds.

I don't know whether you played the Avatar game, but *that* was an example of how to present an alien ecosystem in a TPS. The problem is you can't realistically expect that kind of layout for a single world in a game like ME2.

[Zinoviy]

I think people miss a lot of exploration opportunities because they dislike planet scanning so much, but I have found some pretty cool stuff in the way of anomalies. I was having more fun with these little finds than I ever had with the Mako.

[TJSolo]

Kirabi wrote...

How does driving on a blank planet immerse you more in the game?There is reason why ME uni has never gone to earth,The second they make earth a option people will realize how much of nothing there is to explore in ME games.Do know you much animals are in the ME game

The planet is not blank, in the sense of programming or space used. Please check out some Star Trek shows and NASA vids. Every planet is not a lush excursion full of things to shoot, that would be how the ME1 exploration immersed me.

Very few animals
Almost no Alien structures that are non mission related

Every planet is not explorable, inhabitable, and capable of supporting life. ME1 showed that.

Please tell me what are you finding?In all the planets you have explored in ME1 and ME2 have you ever come across another alien just out in world when you are in the mako?

This is about exploration not the need to have life all around at any given moment.

I will repeat myself i love real exploring neither of the Mass Effect has real exploring.Illusion of exploring is not exploring,Just go and play Oblivion then tell me if Mass effect exploring.ME is linear game that is shepard story that has to inculde enough of galaxy to make feel in you are in world,ME1 did a better job of making people feel they are in world but it was just an illusion.The only real exploring happen in the citadel in ME1.

I am capable of not needed extra stimuli such as people around to feel like exploration. I have FO3, Oblivion, ME1, DAO and some other games that all have exploration to a degree. ME1 is not Oblivion in space but its offering of exploration is on a grander scale than KOTOR. While ME2 offers exploration in terms of scale smaller than ME1 and KOTOR.

If you want to quote me please be able to tell the difference and similarities between scale, scope and size.

[Kirabi]

TJSolo wrote...

Kirabi wrote...

How does driving on a blank planet immerse you more in the game?There is reason why ME uni has never gone to earth,The second they make earth a option people will realize how much of nothing there is to explore in ME games.Do know you much animals are in the ME game

The planet is not blank, in the sense of programming or space used. Please check out some Star Trek shows and NASA vids. Every planet is not a lush excursion full of things to shoot, that would be how the ME1 exploration immersed me.

Very few animals
Almost no Alien structures that are non mission related

Every planet is not explorable, inhabitable, and capable of supporting life. ME1 showed that.

Please tell me what are you finding?In all the planets you have explored in ME1 and ME2 have you ever come across another alien just out in world when you are in the mako?

This is about exploration not the need to have life all around at any given moment.

I will repeat myself i love real exploring neither of the Mass Effect has real exploring.Illusion of exploring is not exploring,Just go and play Oblivion then tell me if Mass effect exploring.ME is linear game that is shepard story that has to inculde enough of galaxy to make feel in you are in world,ME1 did a better job of making people feel they are in world but it was just an illusion.The only real exploring happen in the citadel in ME1.

I am capable of not needed extra stimuli such as people around to feel like exploration. I have FO3, Oblivion, ME1, DAO and some other games that all have exploration to a degree. ME1 is not Oblivion in space but its offering of exploration is on a grander scale than KOTOR. While ME2 offers exploration in terms of scale smaller than ME1 and KOTOR.

If you want to quote me please be able to tell the difference and similarities between scale, scope and size.

So i am suppose to believe that Varren,Thesher Maw and other  few couple creatures in the ME are only creatures that adapted to no oxgen in enviroment.No plants adapted to different types of eviroment.They are not abandon space stations or smaller cities on certian planets,People are not mining planets for resources,They are not other explorers in galaxy,they are not doing reseaching on planets,They are not military bases on planets.No Collector,Vorcha or protean sites,No ancient alien sites.No geth settlements,No quarian selements,No earth colonist settlements.The best you guys can up with is not all planets can support life that why nothing is there common on now.

So your point comes down you are happy with blank planets and driving around blank planets because blank planets make the universe feel bigger.Blank planets also take up disk space which could be used for doing actual stuff in game.ME2 gave up the illusion to do actual stuff in game.Given the choice of given people things do or drive around pretty empty planets,i pick doing stuff and so did the designers.

I am not agianst exploring,I know not every planet can support abundant life,I can deal with a few blanket planets being empty to give scope but this video game which people play for fun they need stuff for people to do.They need some planets rich with life to offset the blank ones.I willing to bet you Mass effect had just one or two planet where different eviroments ran together and which had more stuff and real exploring more than a blank world it would go over better.

I tell you explore a swimming pool or explore the an area in the ocean the size of swimming pool.Which one do you explore?I can have you explore  50 different pools,hell make it 100 pools or I can tell you explore 2 pools and 5 areas in the ocean the size of pools.Which would you choose?

Modifié par Kirabi, 24 avril 2010 - 04:44 .

[Solmenir]

I guess we are all different, but I still can't see what was fun in exploring empty worlds, and managing a really crappy inventory system. I think these were the main drawbacks of ME1

[Dick Delaware]

TJSolo wrote...
The planet is not blank, in the sense of programming or space used. Please check out some Star Trek shows and NASA vids. Every planet is not a lush excursion full of things to shoot, that would be how the ME1 exploration immersed me.

I'm here to play a video game, not watch a NASA vid. I want interesting, fun things to do. Driving around an empty world wth copy-and-pasted interiors that only have poorly designed combat-centric sidequests to do (where the combat isn't even that good), doesn't sound interesting or fun. It's especially not fun when a lot of those resources could be allocated towards fleshing out quest hubs by making them even more interesting.

I thought that the design decision in ME2 to take out or prune a lot of the tedious/superfluous elements of the original was bold, but it ultimately paid off.

TJSolo wrote...
I am capable of not needed extra stimuli such as people around to feel like exploration. I have FO3, Oblivion, ME1, DAO and some other games that all have exploration to a degree. ME1 is not Oblivion in space but its offering of exploration is on a grander scale than KOTOR. While ME2 offers exploration in terms of scale smaller than ME1 and KOTOR.

If you want to quote me please be able to tell the difference and similarities between scale, scope and size.

There was exploration in KOTOR?

[Morey89]

Darth Drago wrote...

Morey89 wrote...

I'm sure it's been said before but...

To me the only disapointement in ME2 was how every are seemed rather "small", take the citadel in ME1 for example, sure it could be a pain sometimes to walk but when i got to it in ME2 and saw that i could only access a laughable part of it, it kinda underwhelmed me. Call me nit picky but i find details allways help an immersive experience, the citadel came to mind simply because it stands off as beeing the most evident "shortening" of what was a fun place to loose yourself in and explore in ME1 - in my opinion -.

"Oh no, I cant stand to walk to far on this station!" Well duh, its supposed to be huge. This is whats missing in ME2 with this station, the scope of how massive this place is. A place like this at least deserves to be explored a lot more than the 4 floors of a single building we get to see in ME2. All the so called hub locations are way to compact. 

Now we're so lazy we cant even walk to the airlock to leave the ship...  

I think you missunderstood what i said somehow. My point was that, even though i can understand how the citadel's size in ME1 might have been a bit of an anoyance for some people, i personally welcomed the fact it was huge because it allowed me to get sucked into the game even more, plus i like to explore, even if only for the hell of it.


On a quick edit: I'd like to agree with FlyingWalrus  in saying that the Wards section in ME2 was excelent, it just really a shame we're basicly confined to that section of the citadel, coupled with the fact that i was less than overjoyed when i realized that speaking with the council meant a webcam conference in Udina's balcony.

Modifié par Morey89, 24 avril 2010 - 06:26 .

[Morey89]

Personally i feel that exploration should be handled by adding more content (read: Sidequests, interactive npc's, etc...) to allready existing or plot centric areas of the game, instead of resorting to ME1's system of cluttering the galaxy with empty planets, that just felt like a chore to me most of the time.

I hate beeing repetitive, but i keep thinking that what threw me off a bit on ME2, although i still loved it, was that -most- of the areas in ME1's habitable worlds or plot centric ones (read: not the captain Mcshootyhands parts where you're gunning down bad guys in arid wasteworlds) seemed more alive and expansive while some in ME2 seemed trimmed down for simplicity like, yet again, the citadel.

Modifié par Morey89, 24 avril 2010 - 06:31 .

[Brako Shepard]

I doubt Mass Effect will ever be a strict RPG. It appeals to a huge audience now, much more so than most RPG's do.



I will no doubt love Mass Effect 3, as itr will still have great gameplay and a fantastic story. But gone are my hopes of it being a huge universe worth exploring. But all is not lost, in the hope that BioWare can someday come up with a really good sci-fi RPG.



Its time to look at Mass Effect as either an action adventure, or an indepth shoot em up. Either way, the hopes of RPG goodness are gone for this series. But with how good both games have been, I can look elsewhere for a great RPG, but still have great gameplay from Mass Effect.

[Dick Delaware]

slimgrin wrote...

The planet exploration could be interesting if implemented differently. What if you landed on a planet that was seemingly bare on the surface, but teemed with life underneath? Or what if you were exploring a cluster of abandoned stations with clues littered throughout, hinting at a mystery of why everyone was missing.

Empty, haunting spaces like in ME1 could be used sparingly, and would do much for the atmosphere of the game. But ultimately they would deserve the same amount of attention in design as any of the N7 missions in ME2. But that wasn't the case.

Let's face it, all those planets in ME1 are just filler.

That would be excellent, and I love investigation-style missions (like Samara's quest), but the type of thing you describe would demand a lot of care and attention from the developers. Would be great to see them pull it off, though.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 24 avril 2010 - 06:50 .

[TJSolo]

Kirabi wrote...

So i am suppose to believe that Varren,Thesher Maw and other  few couple creatures in the ME are only creatures that adapted to no oxgen in enviroment.No plants adapted to different types of eviroment.They are not abandon space stations or smaller cities on certian planets,People are not mining planets for resources,They are not other explorers in galaxy,they are not doing reseaching on planets,They are not military bases on planets.No Collector,Vorcha or protean sites,No ancient alien sites.No geth settlements,No quarian selements,No earth colonist settlements.The best you guys can up with is not all planets can support life that why nothing is there common on now.

So your point comes down you are happy with blank planets and driving around blank planets because blank planets make the universe feel bigger.Blank planets also take up disk space which could be used for doing actual stuff in game.ME2 gave up the illusion to do actual stuff in game.Given the choice of given people things do or drive around pretty empty planets,i pick doing stuff and so did the designers.

I am not agianst exploring,I know not every planet can support abundant life,I can deal with a few blanket planets being empty to give scope but this video game which people play for fun they need stuff for people to do.They need some planets rich with life to offset the blank ones.I willing to bet you Mass effect had just one or two planet where different eviroments ran together and which had more stuff and real exploring more than a blank world it would go over better.

I tell you explore a swimming pool or explore the an area in the ocean the size of swimming pool.Which one do you explore?I can have you explore  50 different pools,hell make it 100 pools or I can tell you explore 2 pools and 5 areas in the ocean the size of pools.Which would you choose?

My point boils down to how much stimuli a gamer needs to appreciate a games approach at replication and immersion.
Blank is a completely ignorant term to use as a descriptor.
Why don't you open a book or a magazine like National Geographic and that will answer the question which I would rather explore. You don't have oceans in video games all you do have are pools that to the best attempts of designers dressed up like oceans. This was done in ME1 to represent space and relative exploration. Read the planet descriptions and attempt to pay attention, you will not have abundant life on the majority of planets visited.
Life on a planet is not needed for any form of exploration. It is a pity you need that much stimuli for you to qualify exploration.

[Dick Delaware]

Brako Shepard wrote...

I doubt Mass Effect will ever be a strict RPG. It appeals to a huge audience now, much more so than most RPG's do.

I will no doubt love Mass Effect 3, as itr will still have great gameplay and a fantastic story. But gone are my hopes of it being a huge universe worth exploring. But all is not lost, in the hope that BioWare can someday come up with a really good sci-fi RPG.

Its time to look at Mass Effect as either an action adventure, or an indepth shoot em up. Either way, the hopes of RPG goodness are gone for this series. But with how good both games have been, I can look elsewhere for a great RPG, but still have great gameplay from Mass Effect.

Exactly. A lot of the complaining about RPG elements being removed in ME2 confuses me greatly, because it's not like ME1 was exactly a hard-core RPG by any stretch of the imagination.

For ME3, I'd be perfectly happy if they kept the core combat mechanics of ME2 (a couple of additions, like cloaked enemies, grenades, etc. to make cover more dicey and tactical), a lot of deep consequences based on your choices in the previous games with multiple, various middle parts, a few mor abilities, and a removal of the planet scanning.

[Brako Shepard]

It was also the choice of vehicle that made Mass Effect planets become tedious. Noveria's story mission suited the Mako as it was a road to a base. But the planets were quite large with all kinds of terrain, which after three planets...kind of what you to just jack it in.

It need a flying vehicle for those planets, I think that would have took some of the dullness out of it atleast. But there was still not enough to discover.

Fallout 3 and Oblivion were amazing for exploring, but I expect this is because they were mostly based on one particular map. BioWare seem to enjoy giving us smaller but gorgeous enviroment backgrounds, but nothing worth exploring. Even the most of the NPC's don't have much to say.

But some how its the story that keeps you hooked into Mass Effect, but I am starting think that the next game being the last game is a good idea.

Modifié par Brako Shepard, 24 avril 2010 - 07:00 .

[TJSolo]

Dick Delaware wrote...

I'm here to play a video game, not watch a NASA vid. I want interesting, fun things to do. Driving around an empty world wth copy-and-pasted interiors that only have poorly designed combat-centric sidequests to do (where the combat isn't even that good), doesn't sound interesting or fun. It's especially not fun when a lot of those resources could be allocated towards fleshing out quest hubs by making them even more interesting.

I thought that the design decision in ME2 to take out or prune a lot of the tedious/superfluous elements of the original was bold, but it ultimately paid off.

 Except that as a sci-fi game ME1 did attempt to pull from NASA and their views that space exploration does not come across life or activety on every planet. The trip to Luna in ME1 also showed that ME1 designers paid attention to NASA in the replication of the Luna 23 probe.
Well reading your trite drivel about the ME1 it doesn't sound interesting to me either. Good thing I played the game and know your drivel is not reflective of how fun it is.
What games are you playing? The hubs in ME1 are more fleshed out in ME1 than 2.

There was exploration in KOTOR?

I really don't feel like answering all these questions if you played the game you would know.
If you are just feigning ignorance then there is no point in me answering because it would just lead to a circle jerk of more ignorant questions.

[TJSolo]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Brako Shepard wrote...

I doubt Mass Effect will ever be a strict RPG. It appeals to a huge audience now, much more so than most RPG's do.

I will no doubt love Mass Effect 3, as itr will still have great gameplay and a fantastic story. But gone are my hopes of it being a huge universe worth exploring. But all is not lost, in the hope that BioWare can someday come up with a really good sci-fi RPG.

Its time to look at Mass Effect as either an action adventure, or an indepth shoot em up. Either way, the hopes of RPG goodness are gone for this series. But with how good both games have been, I can look elsewhere for a great RPG, but still have great gameplay from Mass Effect.

Exactly. A lot of the complaining about RPG elements being removed in ME2 confuses me greatly, because it's not like ME1 was exactly a hard-core RPG by any stretch of the imagination.

For ME3, I'd be perfectly happy if they kept the core combat mechanics of ME2 (a couple of additions, like cloaked enemies, grenades, etc. to make cover more dicey and tactical), a lot of deep consequences based on your choices in the previous games with multiple, various middle parts, a few mor abilities, and a removal of the planet scanning.

You shouldn't pretend to be confused. The lightness of RPGness was already confirmed by Christina Norman because a lot of the time was spent focusing on getting the shooter aspects right from other contemporary games. Which led MsNorman to the conclusion she is going to have a goal of providing richer RPG elements in ME3.

[Dick Delaware]

Personally, slimgrim, I thought Oblivion did the open-world thing terribly. Atrocious level-scaling, dumb AI, very samey looking dungeons, a bland and lifeless world. It reminds me of what would happen if the ME1 explorable planets were the whole game. Yes, I am exaggerating a little, but regardless, the exploration felt really hollow.



Fallout 3 did a much better job at it. Unfortunately, a lot of the side locations were better fleshed out than a lot of stuff in the main quest. Boy, once you found Dad after Tranquility Lane, the quality completely nosedived.

[Sanunes]

There are a few things that I didn't like about ME1 and a few that I don't like about ME2. I understand when people are talking about how they missed driving around planets, but for me after four to five planets I found that every planet felt pretty much the same, slightly different hill structure and being a different colour but that was the only real difference.



I personally feel the compactness of ME2 comes from how linear the story is, unlike ME1 you could go almost anywhere before working on the story missions, but in ME2 you complete three recruitments and then are forced to do a story based mission. For me that kills replayabilty, for thats what made ME1 fun for me is taking different party members on the different missions, but in ME2 I pretty much have the exact same squad every mission.



The Citadel felt small, but I also felt that was because Shepard decided that being in Citadel space was a bad thing and something to avoid doing.



I don't care to scan planets for resources every playthrough and would have liked a "bonus power" that allowed me to choose to bring all my upgrades from a previous game through instead of a loyality power, but thats another thread.

[Dick Delaware]

slimgrin wrote...

Then what games other than Fallout succeed in this regard? I personally thought Obivion was light years ahead of other open-world games at the time. But then, I have only played a smattering of the available games out there.

Fallout 3 did exploration very well, so did Morrowind. They both had interesting places to go to, and Morrowind had a very rich and unique world. I think they had their flaws in other places, but in terms of just walking around and stumbling into cool things, these two did a great job.

I couldn't stand the level scaling in Oblivion because it really made a lot of the dungeon crawl pointless. Great, i've found an awesome set of armor at level 12, too bad it's going to be obsolete by the time I'm level 16 because every bandit is going to be wearing better gear. It also punished you, in a way, for getting stronger because enemies end up outpacing you. Also, none of the locations had any character. Aside from the locations I was sent to for the Dark Brotherhood quests like Fort Sutch, I honestly can't remember a single place I went to in Oblivion. It was all the same.

A lot of the places were empty and lacking in character - they really had nothing around. In Fallout 3, exploring the other vaults (and learning their gruesome backstories), heading downtown and finding cool places (i.e. Underworld, museums, Lincoln Memorial), and randomly finding settlements and quests was a blast. I sometimes liked exploring so much that I didn't even fast travel. I'm aware that there's level scaling in Fallout 3 as well, but it's nowhere near as bad. In fact, some of the new enemies in Broken Steel like the Super Mutant Overlords and Albino Radscorpions make things really tricky at high levels.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 24 avril 2010 - 08:32 .

[EAWare_amirite]

Gear becoming outdated is progression. Getting outleveled by enemies in Oblivion is your fault. The dungeons in Oblivion were well implemented and designed to not be similar to each other. Reading you again makes it clear that anytime action is not ever present you get bored and think a game is lacking because it does not titillate you at opportunity.

[AngryFrozenWater]

Dick Delaware wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Then what games other than Fallout succeed in this regard? I personally thought Obivion was light years ahead of other open-world games at the time. But then, I have only played a smattering of the available games out there.

Fallout 3 did exploration very well, so did Morrowind. They both had interesting places to go to, and Morrowind had a very rich and unique world. I think they had their flaws in other places, but in terms of just walking around and stumbling into cool things, these two did a great job.

I couldn't stand the level scaling in Oblivion because it really made a lot of the dungeon crawl pointless. Great, i've found an awesome set of armor at level 12, too bad it's going to be obsolete by the time I'm level 16 because every bandit is going to be wearing better gear. It also punished you, in a way, for getting stronger because enemies end up outpacing you. Also, none of the locations had any character. Aside from the locations I was sent to for the Dark Brotherhood quests like Fort Sutch, I honestly can't remember a single place I went to in Oblivion. It was all the same.

A lot of the places were empty and lacking in character - they really had nothing around. In Fallout 3, exploring the other vaults (and learning their gruesome backstories), heading downtown and finding cool places (i.e. Underworld, museums, Lincoln Memorial), and randomly finding settlements and quests was a blast. I sometimes liked exploring so much that I didn't even fast travel. I'm aware that there's level scaling in Fallout 3 as well, but it's nowhere near as bad. In fact, some of the new enemies in Broken Steel like the Super Mutant Overlords and Albino Radscorpions make things really tricky at high levels.

In Oblivion every town had its own architecture. Skingrad had a different atmosphere than Bruma, as examples. Every house (and there were hundreds of them) had interiors complete with furniture, beds, food, a little loot, etc. You could enter each house. Some had locks with a key (either in possession of an NPC or stashed somewhere). Each house was owned by someone. People lived in them. They slept, ate, went to work, traveled, socialized at a local inn, etc. Each NPC (again hundreds of them) had their own look and inventory. They belonged to factions, which caused them to behave differently towards NPCs from other factions. NPCs could belong to more than one faction (house owner, citizen of a given town, guild member, etc.). Factions also had their own dialogue. Even creatures belonged to factions to make certain groups hostile or friendly to other factions.

I could go on describing the level of detail for a while. And the level of detail was amazing. Not many games I know have that. Besides FO3, no other game is that detailed. And that includes Morrowind.

Are you sure that you ever played Oblivion? Or do you think it is fashionable to bash it?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 24 avril 2010 - 09:18 .