239 réponses à ce sujet

[Atmosfear3]

I wouldn't mind mission complete screens in ME3 as long as it provided more information rather than just useless RP text. I'd like to see how long it took me to complete that mission, total number of enemies killed, headshots made, shots fired, shots missed, etc.

[MasterSamson88]

Since that picture of the Illusive Man is always there on the screen I also kind of always pictured that the Mission Complete screen was like the Illusive Man reading what went down and how it went down then filing it away. As opposed to it being something for Shepard or myself to look at.



Imagining that always made me grin like an idiot for some reason. XD

[Xerxes52]

I actually like having a brief summary of all the resources, upgrades, etc I have found.

[Terror_K]

uzivatel wrote...

There is nothing wrong about it, its just victim of the OMG_not_RPG crowd.

Aside from the issues regarding abritrary and meaningless XP without context, it's actually more related to the fact that this is supposed to be a very cinematic game and that BioWare (apparently) wanted to make it as immersive as possible and make you lose yourself in the world and forget you're playing a game. The Mission Complete screen completely defeats the purpose of that, especially in the way it's delivered. It wouldn't be so bad (in nature) in a less cinematic, more stats-oriented RPG to be honest, but this is supposed to be an epic sci-fi experience you lose yourself in and like an interactive movie more than a game. The Mission Complete screens in that sense would be the equivalent of going to see a three hour movie at the cinema and it being interrupted by a big "Intermission" splash screen for a minute every 10 minutes or so.

[uzivatel]

Terror_K wrote...

Aside from the issues regarding abritrary and meaningless XP without context, it's actually more related to the fact that this is supposed to be a very cinematic game and that BioWare (apparently) wanted to make it as immersive as possible and make you lose yourself in the world and forget you're playing a game. The Mission Complete screen completely defeats the purpose of that, especially in the way it's delivered. It wouldn't be so bad (in nature) in a less cinematic, more stats-oriented RPG to be honest, but this is supposed to be an epic sci-fi experience you lose yourself in and like an interactive movie more than a game. The Mission Complete screens in that sense would be the equivalent of going to see a three hour movie at the cinema and it being interrupted by a big "Intermission" splash screen for a minute every 10 minutes or so.

Considering there is no real alternative, they did good jub to keep it part of the game.
You can alway skip it and pretend it was just another loading screen.

[Terror_K]

uzivatel wrote...

Considering there is no real alternative, they did good jub to keep it part of the game.
You can alway skip it and pretend it was just another loading screen.

What do you mean "there is no real alternative?"

Aside from several people actually bringing up either alternatives in this thread or ways to simply make it more immersive (such as Kelly walking up to you with a datapad, which is actually a rather novel suggestion that goes to show you it's as much in the execution sometimes as it is in the substance) there are countless RPGs that haven't had such things. Most of them, in fact. The original Mass Effect to name one.

I mean, there's the most obvious alternative: go back to earning XP as you go.

[uzivatel]

Terror_K wrote...

What do you mean "there is no real alternative?"

Aside from several people actually bringing up either alternatives in this thread or ways to simply make it more immersive (such as Kelly walking up to you with a datapad, which is actually a rather novel suggestion that goes to show you it's as much in the execution sometimes as it is in the substance) there are countless RPGs that haven't had such things. Most of them, in fact. The original Mass Effect to name one.

I mean, there's the most obvious alternative: go back to earning XP as you go.

I wrote real alternatives.
If we had Kelly walking up to Shepard with datapad, this thread would be called "Why is the 'Kelly with datapad' animation hated?" (and technically, some of those are TIMs thoughts about the mission not necessarily meant to be read by Shepard).
Those RPGs usually use different game mechanisms than ME2.

I like the XP per mission more and as such I dont consider it an alternative 

[ifander]

Didn't know we were discussing XP here, but I'm somewhat in agreement with Terror_K. I've been playing Borderlands with some friends lately and it made me realize how much I miss a more detailed leveling system and, more importantly, more loot. But that's a bit off-topic, so moving on...

I figured that idea with Kelly giving you a datapad sounded pretty good. Don't know if it's been mentioned, but how about after the post-mission debriefing Kelly asks you if you want to read the post-mission data or whatever. And you can choose if you want to read it or no. Even better, if it contains some input from someone you dislike (say, TIM) you can basically tell them to shove it, like with the Council in ME. Just a thought. Whichever solution BW goes with in the sequel, I sincerely hope they at least give us the option to not read that stupid thing.

Modifié par ifander, 07 décembre 2010 - 11:21 .

[Terror_K]

uzivatel wrote...

Those RPGs usually use different game mechanisms than ME2.

Yes they do. I call them "better ones"

I like the XP per mission more and as such I dont consider it an alternative 

How can you honestly like XP that is just an abritrary number that has no meaning or context whatsoever to it?

Seriously... I'm curious.

[DreDk]

Jerecaine wrote...

Granted im all for opinions and stuff, but the mission complete screen issue in ME2 seems like a very small scale thing for people to hate. I dont see why it's such an issue personally, so maybe someone can explain their reason for it.

Simple:
1) You are a shooter fan
2) You have not play ME1 (at least you have played ME1 after ME2)
3) ME1 was a Cinematic Adventure Rpg
4) ME2 has become a bland monotone corridors TPS with cutscene
5) Some people still remeber ME1...

[uzivatel]

Terror_K wrote...

uzivatel wrote...

Those RPGs usually use different game mechanisms than ME2.

Yes they do. I call them "better ones"

I am afraid you are in a vocal minority. 

I like the XP per mission more and as such I dont consider it an alternative

How can you honestly like XP that is just an abritrary number that has no meaning or context whatsoever to it?

Seriously... I'm curious.

Since I got used to being rewarded with XP for finishing quests back in 90s, I dont really mind ME2 doing the same.

Anyway. it does not encourage certain gameplay style - RPGs tend to punish players by awarding them less XP (and loot) for peaceful or stealth solutions.

[Terror_K]

uzivatel wrote...

Since I got used to being rewarded with XP for finishing quests back in 90s, I dont really mind ME2 doing the same.

Yeah, but didn't you also tend to get XP for other actions during the quest, and didn't you know why and how you earned that XP? Isn't it a bit shallow to you to have mission completion XP as the only form of XP reward in the entire game?

Anyway. it does not encourage certain gameplay style - RPGs tend to punish players by awarding them less XP (and loot) for peaceful or stealth solutions.

This I can actually agree on, and it's unfortunate when that's the case. It's never a problem really for PnP RPGs because you only ever play the campaign once and can't go back and see the alternatives really, so you never know what you're possibly missing and thus don't care: what's done is done. That, and the options in PnP RPGs are usually more fluid and varied, and XP is generally rewarded more for ingenuity itself rather than the style. While I'm all for the concept of "players who actually do more should be rewarded more" I do agree that it's unfair that those who generally take the "kill everybody" route will often get the most XP in cRPGs, which encourages metagaming more than actual roleplaying and actually tends to reward pure violence more than ingenuity. Some games balance things fairly well by giving bonsues to non-violent solutions, bonuses to any locks one may pick or computers one my bypass and to taking peaceful dialogue choices, but it's rare. Unfortunately with cRPGs trapped in being more limited than their PnP cousins it's a problem that will always kind of be there, and one of the only ways one can really combat it is by simplifying the XP earning process... unfortunately.

Still, as somebody else suggested recently in another thread, one could improve this by giving us XP for key mission events and making it more clear rather than just a lump sum with no real explanation.

[luk3us]

Immersion is broken.

[uzivatel]

Terror_K wrote...

Yeah, but didn't you also tend to get XP for other actions during the quest, and didn't you know why and how you earned that XP? Isn't it a bit shallow to you to have mission completion XP as the only form of XP reward in the entire game?

The XP bonuses like those for lock-picking or killing tend to be either much smaller or affect the gameplay as I mentioned bellow.

This I can actually agree on, and it's unfortunate when that's the case. It's never a problem really for PnP RPGs because you only ever play the campaign once and can't go back and see the alternatives really, so you never know what you're possibly missing and thus don't care: what's done is done. That, and the options in PnP RPGs are usually more fluid and varied, and XP is generally rewarded more for ingenuity itself rather than the style. While I'm all for the concept of "players who actually do more should be rewarded more" I do agree that it's unfair that those who generally take the "kill everybody" route will often get the most XP in cRPGs, which encourages metagaming more than actual roleplaying and actually tends to reward pure violence more than ingenuity. Some games balance things fairly well by giving bonsues to non-violent solutions, bonuses to any locks one may pick or computers one my bypass and to taking peaceful dialogue choices, but it's rare. Unfortunately with cRPGs trapped in being more limited than their PnP cousins it's a problem that will always kind of be there, and one of the only ways one can really combat it is by simplifying the XP earning process... unfortunately.

The thing is, that once you balance all solutions, it gets really close to the ME2 system as the total amount of XP is (almost) the same anyway.
Mass Effect having fewer activities than PnP or some cRPGs (non necessarily bad thing), there are most of the traditional non-killing sources eliminated by default, while the others like lock-picking are already rewarding you with mods (unique), money (limited number in the game) or resources (pain to obtain via scanning).
I could somewhat agree about getting the XP throughout the missions at certain key spots, but messages popping in about getting XP are not the most immersive thing either and worse yet, those could be easily missed during combat. Even then I would like to keep some (optional) mission complete screen as I like to check, whether I got all the loot on my 3rd+ playthroughs.

[Terror_K]

The thing is, even if the different methods worked out around the same, with the classic earn-XP-as-you-go method it at least rewarded the explorers more who simply opened more doors/crates, found more hidden areas, hacked more terminals, etc., which is the main thing I miss in ME2. The XP related to these wasn't actually directly mission related so how you approached the mission didn't matter here, but it meant those who explored more and took their time got a bit more than those who simply rushed through things.



Beyond that, Mission Complete screens and lump-sum XP also break up and isolate sections of the game into chunks, and often even make sidequests seem completely insignificant while ruining the natural flow of things. This is particularly noticeable on Illium where there are a whole bunch of tiny sidequests, but they all seem almost meaningless. It just feels like rather than a natural living world you're going from zone to zone focusing purely on one quest at a time and that the game doesn't like the idea at all of you starting a quest and not finishing it ASAP. You never feel like the game wants you to wander and do other things once you're set on the path, compared to other RPGs that often have you coming across sidequests as you go that may put the main one(s) on hold for a little while. ME1 just felt more open and like you had more freedom, while ME2 feels like a group of little rollercoaster rides that never really let you get off until each one is done.

[Cyberfrog81]

I don't hate those screens, but nor do I approve of them. I wish them gone in ME3. If there is any important information, discuss it with someone (or the whole or part of the team/crew) after the mission or just put it in the journal.



The loading screens were fine, as loading screens go. Good riddance on the elevators.

[uzivatel]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, even if the different methods worked out around the same, with the classic earn-XP-as-you-go method it at least rewarded the explorers more who simply opened more doors/crates, found more hidden areas, hacked more terminals, etc., which is the main thing I miss in ME2. The XP related to these wasn't actually directly mission related so how you approached the mission didn't matter here, but it meant those who explored more and took their time got a bit more than those who simply rushed through things.

You are rewarded, just not with XP. The level cap defeats any real reason to get extra XP anyway.

Beyond that, Mission Complete screens and lump-sum XP also break up and isolate sections of the game into chunks, and often even make sidequests seem completely insignificant while ruining the natural flow of things. This is particularly noticeable on Illium where there are a whole bunch of tiny sidequests, but they all seem almost meaningless. It just feels like rather than a natural living world you're going from zone to zone focusing purely on one quest at a time and that the game doesn't like the idea at all of you starting a quest and not finishing it ASAP. You never feel like the game wants you to wander and do other things once you're set on the path, compared to other RPGs that often have you coming across sidequests as you go that may put the main one(s) on hold for a little while. ME1 just felt more open and like you had more freedom, while ME2 feels like a group of little rollercoaster rides that never really let you get off until each one is done.

Its no TES.
The only extra freedom in ME1 was the ability to land on UNC planets repeatedly ... in Mako. 

[Evil Johnny 666]

uzivatel wrote...

The only extra freedom in ME1 was the ability to land on UNC planets repeatedly ... in Mako. 

Being able to use elevators.
Being able to exist/enter your ship by foot.
Being able to customize your allies.
Being able to mod your weapons.
Being able to buy things from sellers.
Others.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:50 .

[ThePatriot101]

Personally, I think if people complain about the immersion-bashing "Mission Complete" screen they should also complain about the immersion of the gameply.  [sarcasm] I mean, how immersive is holding a button that stops in-game time so you can casually decide if your teammates should attack one enemy or another or deciding whether to pick biotic Throw or tech Overload?  Even with hotkeying abilities to the buttons you can only do that to three at most.  And what's with all those conversation bits where you can just not do anything and everyone patiently waits for Shepard to say anything even for hours on end? [/sarcasm]

[Dean_the_Young]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

uzivatel wrote...

The only extra freedom in ME1 was the ability to land on UNC planets repeatedly ... in Mako. 

Being able to use elevators.

Still do.

Being able to exist/enter your ship by foot.

Still can, on some hub worlds. All they took out was the airlock sequence.

Being able to customize your allies.

Still can customize their powers and weaponry.

Being able to mod your weapons.

Still can, via ammo powers and upgrade system.

Being able to buy things from sellers.

You still do.

[RetrOldSchool]

 I don't think the mission complete screen is so bad, what I miss is the debriefing from ME. In ME2 there is usually a very quick debriefing with only Jacob and Miranda, while in ME1 the debriefing included reporting to the Council and sometimes the whole team was involved.

Sure, there are some times in ME2 when you have a debriefing with the Illusive man, but I def think they should include a better debriefing, if not for anything else, then for making the missions feel more connected (if every debriefing contains the squad disscussing where they're heading/how far they've gone etc) and a better sense of closure.

[uzivatel]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Being able to use elevators.
Being able to exist/enter your ship by foot.

How exactly do those two have anything to do with freedom? It was design decision and you were forced to do it.

Being able to customize your allies.

Their armour, by giving them Colossus X.

Being able to mod your weapons.
Being able to buy things from sellers.

Makes you wish you could buy mods on Illium, Omega or Citadel... or maybe even Tuchanka.

 

RetrOldSchool wrote...

 I don't think the mission complete screen is so bad, what I miss is the debriefing from ME. In ME2 there is usually a very quick debriefing with only Jacob and Miranda, while in ME1 the debriefing included reporting to the Council and sometimes the whole team was involved.

Sure, there are some times in ME2 when you have a debriefing with the Illusive man, but I def think they should include a better debriefing, if not for anything else, then for making the missions feel more connected (if every debriefing contains the squad disscussing where they're heading/how far they've gone etc) and a better sense of closure.

There are more debriefings with TIM than there were with Council and considering the squad composition in ME2, there is no real reason to have them all around (many would probably ignore you is you asked them anyway).

Modifié par uzivatel, 07 décembre 2010 - 05:01 .

[uzivatel]

Dont read it then?

[catabuca]

Until we can suit up and enter a VR environment to play our games, game mechanics will always be apparent to the player to some degree or another. For a start we're pressing buttons that pause action, for example, or watching our health regenerate after we've just been blown up by a mortar.

There are different ways to try to hide some of those mechanics, however. It is that hiding, along with the strength of a game's story and how well it pulls you into it, that is, for me, what determines the immersive quality of a game.

In my opinion, ME1 was more successful because, despite the clunky nature of melting down mods and armour for omnigel, and despite the lack of variety in base design on UCW (to name but 2 of the issues many had with the game), it managed to hide certain aspects that often pull me out of the gameplay experience.

I knew that when Shep et al were in an elevator that the reason it wasn't quicker was because a new part of the map was loading. I knew the game mechanic behind it. But somehow it helped me stay in the game universe — I was still playing inside the game, rather than waiting outside the game for it to start again.

And so, leaving aside the mission end screens for a moment, while I don't hate the static loading screens that show schematics of whatever location you're currently in, or random graphics of vaguely sci-fi-looking helices and so on, I find them pesky because they stop me dead where I am, and all of a sudden I'm some woman sat on her sofa waiting for a game to load.

Likewise the animation of Shep et al in the Normandy airlock. For me, it provided a more fluid and 'natural' experience that didn't take me out of the game universe. I was still controlling Shep, the camera, watching them all being decontaminated, listening to the ship's computer announce that XO Pressley was relieved, announcing my return to the ship as the commanding officer. It was a really nice touch that worked really well at keeping me in the universe.

Now, ME1 did have a couple of static loading screens out of necessity, but I believe they were handled in such a way as to minimise the impact on the player. I'm of course talking about the one when you travelled between planetary systems and got a screen of the Normandy with its thrusters blazing, against the background of space; and the one where you got the graphic of the Normandy entering the mass relay when travelling between larger systems. Both were clearly loading screens that didn't alter as you saw them multiple times, but they were shot and executed in such a way as to be consistent with the narrative. You were travelling through space = you saw a screen of you travelling through space.

I'm not here to bash ME2 for the sake of it. I thought, for example, that ME2 handled the loading screens for smaller side missions better than ME1. Both were fine, but ME2's shuttle powering down to whichever planet it was, was always an individually-animated sequence that took in the often beautiful vistas. ME1's was, as I said, fine, and was still consistent in terms of narrative — the Normandy flies by and drops the Mako, wysiwyg — but apart from a little difference in weather system or grass versus rock, there wasn't much difference between them.

And so we come to the mission complete screens. I'm approaching this quite apart from the issue on XP, and purely from the 'immersion' argument. Regardless of whether the player is awarded experience and fluffy bunnies throughout the game or at the end of individual portions of that game, the way ME2 handled leaving a mission area and returning to the normal game world could have been handled in a much better way, as far as I'm concerned. Going back to my earlier point, being kept inside the universe aids my sense of immersion far more than being pulled out of it. Whether or not I can hit a button and ignore the mission complete screens is immaterial, because I've already been pulled out of the game, how quickly I can get back in it isn't really an issue.

tl;dr: It really comes down to this for me: the less time I can be alerted to the fact I'm some person sat on a sofa playing a game the better. Smoother interactions between one part of the map/level/game to another means a better overall experience in terms of feeling like you're really there.

In ME1 the game mechanic and loading were handled in such a way as I felt more like I was part of the mass effect universe; in ME2 the game mechanic and loading were handled in such a way as I felt more like I was playing a mass effect game.

That, for me, is an, if not the, most crucial thing about creating a feeling of immersion.



(As always, I'm happy to accept that other people don't feel the same way about the importance of this type of immersion; I hope they are gracious enough to accept that I do feel that way though.)