239 réponses à ce sujet

[AmstradHero]

charmingcharlie wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

So why didn't people complain about the fast travel terminals in ME1?

How about because fast travel was OPTIONAL, I have never used the fast travel system in ME 1 so I don't complain about it.  The fast travel system is there for people that suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder and have to do everything in 5 seconds.

...

I don't complain about the load screens in ME 2 because there was something I could do about it.  I quickly replaced the loading screen movies with static screens and my load times between levels is now around 2 - 4 secs (on the PC).

I can't believe I almost missed this gem.

Hypocrisy much?

[ifander]

AmstradHero wrote...

charmingcharlie wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

So why didn't people complain about the fast travel terminals in ME1?

How about because fast travel was OPTIONAL, I have never used the fast travel system in ME 1 so I don't complain about it.  The fast travel system is there for people that suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder and have to do everything in 5 seconds.

...

I don't complain about the load screens in ME 2 because there was something I could do about it.  I quickly replaced the loading screen movies with static screens and my load times between levels is now around 2 - 4 secs (on the PC).

I can't believe I almost missed this gem.

Hypocrisy much?

Are you comparing fast travel to watching load screens? If you are then you're just grasping at straws here. They're hardly comparable. 

[Shadowman15]

Because there's no women on the screen. ;P I would love to see women on it!

Modifié par Shadowman15, 03 décembre 2010 - 10:07 .

[Aumata]

Actually it is comparable, fast travel, going to another system, going to another planet, leaving a planet. All had loading screens. I'm pretty sure that some levels had loading screens in game but I haven't played ME1 in some time now. Though this is more about the Mission Complete screen than loading screens.

[charmingcharlie]

AmstradHero wrote...

I can't believe I almost missed this gem.

Hypocrisy much?

There is nothing hypocritcal about it, the load screens are artificially long.  It actually only takes 2 - 4 seconds for the level to load on the PC but no we have to sit through a crappy low res video lasting 10 - 15 seconds long only AFTER the video has finished does the level actually load

Using fast travel just because you can't be bothered to do a bit of walking is a totally different issue, but naturally you can't see that.  There is a vast difference between removing the loading movies because they actually HINDER loading and skipping chunks of the game by using fast travel because you can't be bothered to do a bit of walking.

[ifander]

Aumata wrote...

Actually it is comparable, fast travel, going to another system, going to another planet, leaving a planet. All had loading screens. I'm pretty sure that some levels had loading screens in game but I haven't played ME1 in some time now. Though this is more about the Mission Complete screen than loading screens.

My point being that fast travel was optional. You could choose, in most cases, to walk all the way from the galaxy map, through the entire map and back without magically appearing someplace else. Same thing on the Citadel. With the load screens in ME2 however, there's no alternative, you can only sit there watching some boring diagram. Or you can skip it and reduce the load times, there may be a similarity but it's hardly hypocritical (although that ADD thing may have been a bit much). 

As for the mission complete screen, as I said before, just make it optional (enable/disable in options) or move it to the menu. Maybe a small reminder, like when the mission is complete you're told to press F to return to ship, only it would remain for a few seconds and then disappear. "Press 'F' to view Debriefing" or something like that. Either way, those that want the screens can have them, those that find them superfluous can simply disable or ignore them. It's a win-win.

[LadyJaneGrey]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Also, the mission briefings? Only applied to Feros, Noveria, Therum, and Virmire. Which incidentally are the major story missions. You don't get FULL staff briefings in the sequel, but you get something. And more often. Also, remember that your staff in the original was basically 5 people, since I never saw Tali. Also, I can understand not having every squad member give an opinion on each mission. That's a LOT of voicework. Besides, the interactions I got with them already, and sometimes mid-mission was good enough for me.

True; do we have a theory why she was the squadmate left out?

The only in-universe explanation I saw is she's too young in ME1 to be included?

On topic: I can take or leave the mission complete screens.  I do like seeing Cerberus' perspective.

[Inquisitor Recon]

I for one like seeing what Shepard got paid on an operation.

[SOG TOUGH]

Reading some of the posts in the topic, I didn't actually realise how negative the "Mission Complete" screen is, but I always felt there was something unsettling about it, now I fully see why and definetely hope it doesn't return in ME3. ME1 didn't have it, and that's why I found the flow of the first game to be more laid-back; you'd do a mission, get a nice debriefing cut-scene, and then do another mission, it didn't feel like the game was made up of chapters but one big epic chapter.

[Commandant Bob]

I do like seeing a summary of the mission, but the immersion-killing downside of it outweighs the good side.
I'd like the previous mission's summary to be available on the private terminal.

Modifié par Commandant Bob, 03 décembre 2010 - 10:43 .

[AmstradHero]

charmingcharlie wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...

I can't believe I almost missed this gem.

Hypocrisy much?

There is nothing hypocritcal about it, the load screens are artificially long.  It actually only takes 2 - 4 seconds for the level to load on the PC but no we have to sit through a crappy low res video lasting 10 - 15 seconds long only AFTER the video has finished does the level actually load

Using fast travel just because you can't be bothered to do a bit of walking is a totally different issue, but naturally you can't see that.  There is a vast difference between removing the loading movies because they actually HINDER loading and skipping chunks of the game by using fast travel because you can't be bothered to do a bit of walking.

The hypocrisy was declaring that anyone who used fast-travel suffered from ADHD and then in the next breath declaring you couldn't wait a few seconds for the load-screen animation to finish.

That said, I'd probably agree that the game shouldn't wait until the load-screen animation finishes before starting the game again.  There's no need to force the player to wait if loading is complete. But if it did that, then I imagine we'd have people complaining: "I don't even get to read the load-screen text/hints before they disappear!" or "How
come I start playing before my transport arrives on planet/transport car reaches it's destination/elevator gets to the right floor"?  Seriously. Players can and will complain about anything and everything.

Just so you know, I barely used fast-travel in my first playthrough of the game. Subsequent playthroughs? I used them lots. I knew where I wanted to go and didn't want to traipse across ground I already knew to get there. I don't play games to commute/backtrack. Commuting is boring. it doesn't add anything to gaming or roleplaying except arbitrarily increasing playtime. That is bad game design.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 03 décembre 2010 - 10:54 .

[Busomjack]

The Mission Complete screen is one of those things that I don't think make the game any better or worse. It doesn't matter in the slightest.

[Evil Johnny 666]

wizardryforever wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien wrote...

The more I think about this, the more funny I find this whole 'bring back debriefings' statement, am sorry but clearly some people weren't playing the same game I was in this instance.

Every one of the dossiers had a debriefing usually involving dossier person, jacob and Shepard (EDI sometimes involved too)
There were a couple of conversations between people after a combination of loyalty missions and of course another loyalty mission where Shepard, Miranda, Jacob and TIM were discussing the events.
Some of the non-squad related main missions had just TIM and Shep have a chat after, some with Shep, Jacob and Miranda and some with some of the other squad mates (and crew) involved.

So basically put, they don't need to be brought back because they never left in the first place.

Dude, talk about a debriefing "glad to have your skill-set". Seriously there was nothing fun with these and they were damn short. In ME1, they were longer, you had more choices and there were just more interactions in general. I guess that we basically get no mission with particular implication destroys a bit the purpose of debriefings. In ME2 we get what? THREE real missions? With no real implications to them? Ie. choices you had to make for example in ME1. Conversations with squad mates in ME2 were quite more sparse, less detailed and quite shorter. Yes overall you have as much conversations with squad mates, but they are much shorter and there's not even an handful of them per character. There's like one conversation, then one about the loyalty quest, and then another one which could only be two lines like with Jacob.

My God, talk about seeing what you want to see.  More interactions in ME1?  Have you even played ME2?  Or do you consider things like elevator conversations (which Shepard does not participate in) and the odd "talk to" moments on the Citadel to be interactions?  Because the sheer number of characters both on and off the squad that Shepard can converse with in ME2 is much, much higher.  As for mission debriefings, there is one after every recruitment and every Illusive man-originating mission, and while everyone is not present, pretty much anyone who might have something to say is.  Even if you don't count recruitment and loyalty missions as "story" missions, that still makes ME1 have exactly ONE more briefing than ME2.  Hardly a radical change.

With squad conversations, only Jacob, Tali, and Garrus behave as you describe (unless you romance them), everyone else you talk to has just as much if not more to say as the squaddies in ME1.  That makes seven squaddies with just as much to say as ME1 squaddies.  Hey that's more than ME1 had!  Go figure. <_<

Go try ME1 again, your squad mates have more to say. By interactions, I don't mean as a whole, of course if you take a couple of dialogs here and there from 11 squad mates you have more interactions than with 6 who have a lot more to say, but that's the price you pay for having so many squad mates which are not all that interesting, legion or grunt anyone? Even Samara and Zaeed aren't particularly interesting. While I liked Samara's loyalty quest, I felt the whole code thing to be a bit ridiculous. So instead of having more quality interactions with your character, you have a varying quality. Plus even if you do romance them, well it's even less well made than in ME1.

[charmingcharlie]

AmstradHero wrote...

The hypocrisy was declaring that anyone who used fast-travel suffered from ADHD and then in the next breath declaring you couldn't wait a few seconds for the load-screen animation to finish.

There is no hypocrisy about it, people used Fast travel to speed up the actual game.  I used static screens to cut down on unnecessary load times. 

AmstradHero wrote...

Subsequent playthroughs? I used them lots. I knew where I wanted to go and didn't want to traipse across ground I already knew to get there. I don't play games to commute/backtrack. Commuting is boring. it doesn't add anything to gaming or roleplaying except arbitrarily increasing playtime. That is bad game design.

Then that is up to you, I have never used the fast travel system because I find it jarring and removes me from the game.  I certainly never felt there was too much tedious walking but then that is me I quite enjoyed getting to know the layout of the Citadel and to me the game felt more immersive not using fast travel.

But hey that is the thing you had a choice, if you wanted to avoid the "drudgery" of walking you could avoid it.  If I wasn't on the PC I wouldn't have a choice I would have to sit through crappy lo res movies that actually make loading worse. 

The same with the mission complete screen, I find it useless, it breaks the immersion and it serves practically no purpose whatsoever.  In fact I click on the exit button that fast I can't even tell you what crap the Mission Complete screen actually tells you aside from some blatantly obvious bit of text from the illusive man that goes along the lines of "oh Shepard did it ... who would've thunk it eh ?".

Now if Bioware cannot think of a more imaginative way to present the mission complete screen in ME 3 then at the very least make it optional so that those people that do not need a summary of what they just did 10 secs ago can carry on regardless.  That is all most are asking in here, make it optional so that those that want it can still have it and those that don't want it can avoid it.

If you want an example of how well Bioware can do things then just look at the galaxy map.  The galaxy map is nothing more than a level selector, they could have easily done a page where you select a planet and go and do that mission.  But they didn't they spent time coming up with an imaginative way to turn a rather mundane thing like selecting a level into an integral part of the game and they did it very very well.  That is the same treatment that should be applied to the mission complete screen.

Modifié par charmingcharlie, 03 décembre 2010 - 11:32 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

AmstradHero wrote...

Precisely. I love that it takes less than a few years for people to start remembering ME1 with the wide-eyed romantic love that only nostalgia can provide.  Come on complainers, think about ME1 for just one second. Not with the rabid "ME1 WAS BETTER!" glasses you're wearing, but objectively. Many of the things you're complaining about are still present in ME1.

Yay for trying to make your opinion more valid by attacking our "motives" (can't find a better word :/). Yeah, some things were still present in ME1, albeit differently. You had loading screens when using a Mass Relay, but it was the Normandy in FTL kind of like the elevators, it kept the immersion. Or seeing the Mass Relay and stuff, in ME2, you get real loading screens the whole time. And truth is, you don't need wide-eye romantic love to realise ME2 takes A LOT of immersive elements out of ME1; no more elevators, no more leaving the Normandy on foot or re-entering and going through depressurization, no more seeing the Mako land when beginning certain type of missions, no teleportation to - and from missions. While playing Mass Effect it's obvious Bioware took care of making an as immersive possible experience, an as seemless as possible one. In ME2, it's obvious they didn't care about it as all the little things that made a difference were taken out in favor of something faster, more simple, like the WHOLE experience they made out of ME2 compared to ME1. This is obviously about catering to a wider demographic, hell they even said themselves they wanted to appeal to people who play Call of Duty, and now with that supposedly shooter spin-off... it makes you wonder why it couldn't be Mass Effect 3. I could continue on on why ME2 is a dumbed down experience and why they obviously cater to a wider crowd, but this is not the subject of this thread. Eh,the Mission Complete screen is merely a pat in the back to players new to "rpgs" (ME2 is barely one really, if it is even one) to tell them "hey! congrats you earned these things you usually don't care about since you're in for the shooting and awesome cinematic experience".

[Evil Johnny 666]

charmingcharlie wrote...
That is the same treatment that should be applied to the mission complete screen.

They just should make it as an option in your personal computer. Simple and easy to access, they could barely change the layout, maybe just change the mission complete part.

[AmstradHero]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
Go try ME1 again, your squad mates have more to say. By interactions, I don't mean as a whole, of course if you take a couple of dialogs here and there from 11 squad mates you have more interactions than with 6 who have a lot more to say, but that's the price you pay for having so many squad mates which are not all that interesting, legion or grunt anyone? Even Samara and Zaeed aren't particularly interesting. While I liked Samara's loyalty quest, I felt the whole code thing to be a bit ridiculous. So instead of having more quality interactions with your character, you have a varying quality. Plus even if you do romance them, well it's even less well made than in ME1.

And yay for not having your facts right. I wish I could find the post that listed the number of lines of dialogue for every party character in ME1 and ME2. I'm sorry to tell you that ME2 had a lot more dialogue for each character than in ME1.

Kaidan and Ashley were the only ones in the same realm as ME2 characters, and likely only because of their roles in the citadel briefings and Virmire.

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
Complete screen is merely a pat in the back to players new to "rpgs" (ME2 is barely one really, if it is even one) to tell them "hey! congrats you earned these things you usually don't care about since you're in for the shooting and awesome cinematic experience".

I've been playing RPGs since Dungeon Master and the Gold Box era, and I'm annoyed by this constant "ME is not an RPG" or "ME2 is dumbed down" argument that gets brought out so often. What character interaction did you get in those classic RPGs? Virtually none. Yet I don't see anyone claiming they were "dumbed down" or "not RPGs."  I'm sorry, but these lines are crutches for people who can't actually develop a reasoned argument for their position.

{gratuitous reference}
I have neither the time nor inclination to explain myself to the gamers who sleep under the protection of the games they have missed, then question the means by which today's games are provided.  I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a programming language, and start coding.
{/gratuitous reference}

Modifié par AmstradHero, 03 décembre 2010 - 11:56 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

Mission Complete is usually something seen in a shooter game. And given the route that ME2 has taken since Bioware's been under EA, I don't blame people for not liking it. But like it or not, EA calls the shots. If they tell Bioware to make a 3ps with a few rpg elements in it, that's what they'll do. This is significantly evident in Mass 2. My hopes for ME3 aren't that big unfortunately. Bioware's on the verge of losing a lot of loyal customers. They need to pull this one off better than ME1 or 2.



-Polite

[INSAN3SOLDIERN]

Almost of all of this entire thread has made me face palm. All this argument over a mission complete screen?

[Epic777]

INSAN3SOLDIERN wrote...

Almost of all of this entire thread has made me face palm. All this argument over a mission complete screen?

'
You ain't seen nothing, go on the deus ex board if you want arguments over nothing

[INSAN3SOLDIERN]

Epic777 wrote...

INSAN3SOLDIERN wrote...

Almost of all of this entire thread has made me face palm. All this argument over a mission complete screen?

'
You ain't seen nothing, go on the deus ex board if you want arguments over nothing

I'm tempted..

[Zaxares]

While I can see why some people find the "Mission Complete" screens immersion-breaking, I have to say that I don't really mind them. I find it interesting to see what TIM REALLY thinks of my choices and accomplishments, and I do also find it a helpful guide for ensuring that I didn't miss out on any credits or upgrades during the mission.

[Evil Johnny 666]

AmstradHero wrote...

I've been playing RPGs since Dungeon Master and the Gold Box era, and I'm annoyed by this constant "ME is not an RPG" or "ME2 is dumbed down" argument that gets brought out so often. What character interaction did you get in those classic RPGs? Virtually none. Yet I don't see anyone claiming they were "dumbed down" or "not RPGs."  I'm sorry, but these lines are crutches for people who can't actually develop a reasoned argument for their position.

Character interaction is certainly not an important part of RPGs. The biggest thing about RPGs is stats, creating a character and building him. In a nutshell, that's what an RPG is all about. Character interaction and big choices are RPG elements, just the lesser ones. It's like you're telling me ME2 is an RPG because you can talk to people do a couple of real quests and make big choices. I'm still not sure whether to call ME2 an RPG, but I'm [b]highly[b] inclined to say it has more shooting elements than rpg ones. And I mean, play ME1 and then play ME2, it's so obvious how the game doesn't play similarly and how the rpg diminished. It's weird you're coming up with old games since a lot of old schoolers detest games like Mass Effect or Oblivion and think to not see character interaction as an important RPG element and I agree.

I'm sorry, but you still used a crutch to attack people's motivations.

[AmstradHero]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
Character interaction is certainly not an important part of RPGs. The biggest thing about RPGs is stats, creating a character and building him.

By that rationale, Diablo and World of Warcraft are the best RPGs around. Is that really the argument you're making? I suspect not.

And I didn't use a crutch to attack anyone's motivations. I merely pointed out (or rather reiterated the point that someone else had already made) that many people have complained about the "absence" of things in ME2 that are actually there every bit as much as they are in ME1.

[wizardryforever]

I've said this before and I will say it again:  All an RPG needs to qualify as an RPG is a main character who is customizable to some extent (race, gender, class, background, etc); have a story that has a beginning, middle, and end; and have the character influence that story and its outcome through their actions.  This is the essence of Role-Playing, and anything else is superfluous.

This means that things like inventory, complicated classes and/or stats, or tons of character interaction are not necessary for a game to be an RPG.  This things may end up overcomplicating the game, depending on the setting and the demographic.

That said, ME2 has the raw necessities to be an RPG.  Having some simplified versions of the typical components that RPGs traditionally have does not make it any less of an RPG, just a different one.  And do remember that this game (like its predecessor), is a hybrid, which means that there will be parts of each genre in the game.  I believe that Bioware was hoping for something of a Reese's moment.  "You got RPG in my shooter!"  "You got shooter in my RPG!"  In the case of quite a few people, it is indeed a Reese's moment, and they enjoy the combination of two tastes that they enjoy.  Others however (like those weirdos who don't like chocolate and/or peanut  butter), hate the combination, and wish the offending genre would just get out of the game that they otherwise like.

I don't feel like there is anything wrong with the combination, nor with the mission complete screen as being part of the "other" genre.