155 réponses à ce sujet

[War Houndoom]

Preston Watamaniuk wrote...

Some interesting feedback in this thread. Thanks for the discussion.

Preety cool Preston made a comment, hopefully it sparks debate in the dev room.

[DarthSliver]

Ok you guys seem to miss that when scanning the planet for the high points of its resources you had to hold down the trigger button to even scan for those. Thats one thing id do away with if they insist we mine like that. But truly i didnt mine, mining at all. Holding done on the trigger button was more tiring than anything. A way to fix that is all i have to do is press the scan button that allows me to see the high points in the minerals



Also I agree with the credits, it so hard to come by some cash in Mass Effect 2. Its like, well that last Reaper battle really did burn the Credits when it comes to repairing. Or my Resurrection cost more than they actually wanna admit.

[Mister Mida]

Make me choose a galaxy map and I'll choose ME (1)'s without thinking. ME2's additions to it felt totally unnecessary.

[AntiChri5]

ME 1 Galaxy Map was dreadful compared to ME 2.

In ME1, there was no indication of where you had or had not been, meaning i have to make a little chart for every playthrough to tick the box when i go to the system so i don't have to keep rechecking. It was a failure.

In ME2, all the information i need is conveyed to me: The map provides percentages of available systems that have been explored.

[Mister Mida]

AntiChri5 wrote...

ME 1 Galaxy Map was dreadful compared to ME 2.
In ME1, there was no indication of where you had or had not been, meaning i have to make a little chart for every playthrough to tick the box when i go to the system so i don't have to keep rechecking. It was a failure.
In ME2, all the information i need is conveyed to me: The map provides percentages of available systems that have been explored.

That little feature would probably be the only thing about ME2's GM that I found good about it.

[SantosCapela]

For me there is an essential change needed in me2 galaxy map. An ability to turn off tolltips in the map. Maybe only show them on mouse over or selection. I do think that they are helpful but with all of them showing at the same time they can get in the way...



I would also welcome more shortcuts and middle mouse cursor on codex entries and so on. I really don't understand why clicking escape exits the galaxy map in certain situations.

[CannotCompute]

I liked the ME1 galaxy map better. And indeed, the one from 2006 did look awesome.

However, I did not detest the mining "mini-game". Sure, it still has to be improved and made more interesting... but sometimes I just liked sitting back and mine for a bit.

Furthermore, I agree with a lot of the OP's points, but don't think ME3 should "include the smallest amount of planets in any ME game so far"... I still want to be able to explore extensively.

Modifié par CannotCompute, 28 janvier 2011 - 09:15 .

[Icinix]

I just want planet names added to the galaxy map so I don't have to fly to a planet first...

[Pepper4]

I just want planet mining removed...

[ZLurps]

I just checked galaxy map footage from 2006 trailer and I don't know. I think I would rather have something accessible and functional than pretty.

I like galaxy map in ME1. My only problem with that is that I need checklist to remember which planets I have scanned.
My gut feeling is that ME1 galaxy map can feel sometimes confusing because some systems are accessible only after receiving assignment or finishing plot world and suddenly there is a new system in cluster player has already visited. Tool tips in ME2 galaxy map is IMO big improvement over ME1 map.

I'm not big fan of flying ME2 "toy ship". ME1 system where commander sets destination and crew takes care that Normandy arrives to destination is IMO more immersive.
That said, "flying" toy ship and fuel system IMO work together. Flying miniature Normandy made fuel management very intuitive, feature that just works without much need for attention from me.
Then, if I won't be flying miniature Normandy in ME3 galaxy map I probably won't be disappointed.

Probes... for me buying probes in ME2 makes sense because the Alliance isn't maintaining SR2 and even Cerberus have impressive budget it still doesn't come anywhere near resources available to Alliance. For same reason gathering resources in ME2 to upgrade Normandy makes sense to me.

What comes to planet probing mini-game itself, it is imo okay, but maybe there is too much of it. I imported character with Rich achievement from ME1.
What if there were more variety on resource gathering missions? In ME1 player can find all kinds of things from planets and asteroids. There is just a pop up description... "Away team discovered xxxxxx from old Salarian spaceship...."
Those discoveries add kind of mystery to universe besides giving player resources.

Maybe in ME3 players could find something like ancient derelict spaceship orbiting planet, or crashed on meteor and there could be different kind of mini-game, perhaps similar to hacking to salvage element zero core or other resources from the ship?

Anyway, exploration is big part of gaming experience for me and even though I'm not huge fan of probing planets I don't want to see element like that entirely gone.

Modifié par ZLurps, 28 janvier 2011 - 01:19 .

[Sailears]

Jzadek72 wrote...

(Sorry for mild necro, I think there's still more to speak about on this.)

In this case, it is well worth it!

I think the key thing for BW to consider is that it ought to be an interactive map, not a minigame.

[Monochrome Wench]

One thing that I hope that ME3 does not have that ME1 did was play those Normandy travelling cinematics when changing systems. I found those horrribly annoying. I much prefered ME2's method of directly controlling the Normandy when travelling between systems. Of course its possible that the actual time spent moving between systems in ME1 was lower than ME2, but ME2 keeps you playing so I find it better.

[Lumikki]

Not much to say. I hate these ME1 vs ME2 threads.

In my opinion because Mass Effect serie is cinematic experience and have high visual incriment. I would recomment forgeting these toy games (mini-games) and conserate creating simulation of galaxy traveling. Meaning how Shepards would see the situation if it would be real.

Galaxy

Inside Normandy, Shepard select where to go from virtual map of known galaxy. Show only what Shepard knows, not every detail. Simulate 3D cinematic traveling in destination Shepard has choosen and the difficulty of it, if there isn't easy route to it. Arraving to destimation and then allow use long range scanners to detect planets as what's there in solar system.

Solar system

If some planet seem interesting from Shepards perspective and Shepard choose to go there. Simulate this travel in 3D cinematic ways and arrivement to orbit.  Allow Shepard to scan planets, atmosphere, life forms, mineral density or any abnormality. Allow Shepard to see the result of this planet scanning data in virtual 3D display inside the Normandy,  to make decissions. If there is something interesting in planet, then allow Shepard to take small vehicles and travel to planet surface. What kind of vehicle could be depending what kind of atmoshpere planet has. Simulate the taveling the planet and back if needed.

Planet surface or Space station

What ever happens here in planets surface or in space station, happen in 3D cinematic visual ways. Is it mining, meeting colony, investigating ruins, taking samples of plants or rocks, or rescuint crash landed aliens or what ever. When in surface it should have unique atmosphere and enviroment, meaning air, life-forms, gravity and weather. Make it feel like real thing in some unknow planet surface. Make crew wear correct suit (cloths) for the job.

Hole idea of doing this should be more 3D cinematic ways, not like some simple mini-game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 janvier 2011 - 03:03 .

[matt-bassist]

ive only read the OPs post, so someone migh have posted this already. but i assume the reason they took away the cursor and replaced it with a mini ship you have to fly around was because using a console controller to move a mouse cursor around is annoying. so to appeal to the console crowd, they made you 'control' a little ship instead of moving a cursor and clicking.

[N7Infernox]

Mass Effect e3 2006 galaxy map for sure. Including the ME2 notification system would also be amazing.

[CanadAvenger]

Damn, the ME '06 Demo Galaxy Map is sexy. But as someone said earlier it would probably be a little resource draining. A PC would likely handle it, but since it's a multiplatform game I don't know enough about the 360 and PS3 processing power to be able to do that.

Here's a list of ideas/things that I liked about both maps that I think would be excellent for ME3. I will warn you in saying that I usually write as things come to my head, but I'll try to keep thins somewhat related:

• Keep the 'style' of the ME1 map. I liked the ability to choose my destination and then the pilot would subsequently fly there for me. That is his job, after all. Flying the model around was just not true to a "Commander" role.
  
• The detail of the planets when viewing their codex entries was excellent in ME1. It made it much more realistic. Going to the surface and exploring more so, but after a while it got repetative. In ME2, the only planets that had significant detail (in my opinion) was the planets in the Sol system, and all the hub worlds. The rest seemed generic (the exception being gas giants. Gas giants are likely to be somewhat similar to each other). When the codex stated that there was "the Great Rift Valley" or other landmarks that could be seen from space - they couldn't be seen from space. That goes for the gas giants too... "Several enormous storms", etc. Couldn't be seen.  I would support a smaller amount of planets in ME3 for higher detail of them.
  EDIT: ^ If there is significant detail about the features of the planet, then that should be reflected in the model. I'm not saying all planets need to be totally unique, but in the case of details in the codex then they should be unique.
  
• For fuelling, while it would seem necessary for a starship to do it I found it time consuming and pointless for me to do myself. I just spent 10 minutes trying to think of an adequate improvement without removing the system entirely, but I can't.
  
• Now, I didn't mind planet scanning/mining, but there are some aspects that can be improved on:
  
  The sheer amount of planets that could be scanned was way too high. I am currently sitting at ~150k resources for everything, and I have all of the upgrades in the game. (That are possible to get all at once). You can easily get enough resources for all of that from maybe 20-30 Rich planets. I just scanned any Rich or Good planet until it hit Moderate and moved on.
  
  The system was slow and tedious. Perhaps implement a new system that scans the whole planet entirely, and then shows "nodes" of resources on the 3D planet model afterwards. You can then launch probes at those nodes and reap the benefits. By extension, you could even list said nodes as "Rich, Good, Poor" etc instead of the planet itself. Or both. It would save players time and effort. When "anomalies" are discovered, that will show on the model as well. Instead of probing that anomaly, you could "mouse over" it and instead of "PROBE", "LAND" would be available.
  
  Of course, the above is activated through the Galaxy Map, so it's sort of on topic. The next point is related:
  
• I liked the "% explored" feature on the ME2 map. Much easier to keep track of where you've been and where you need to go. In addition, however... If the mining system is still used in ME3, you could add a "% mined/scanned" to that as well.
  
• There needs to be a toggle to get rid of the journal destinations/important destinations on the map. Especially after the LotSB DLC, I have a bunch of "Palladium Rich Planet" etc all over the screen, and I can't see all the star systems hidden behind them without just randomly moving the cursor around and hoping. Better yet, let it have multiple choices, ie; "Remove All", "Remove Non-hub Planets", etc. (similar to how the journal can be organized differently with one button) That way the Citadel, Illium and other major ports would still be there but with no extra clutter. Or the player could make it completely blank for teh lulz. The choice is theirs.
  
• If the above toggle can't be made to work, perhaps a way to rotate the map 360 degrees would suffice. And/or zoom in and out without going to a cluster/system. Otherwise a rotating map is unnecessary.
  
• In relation to the above, a zoom function for the solar system view would be a nice addition. Specifically for the larger systems where planets are off-screen. That way you don't have to wander with the cursor (or ship, in ME2) to try and find the sneaky outermost planet(s).
  
• I much preferred the asteroid belt imagery in ME2, and instead of shiny specks you needed to scan, you had an actual visible asteroid/planetoid that you could go to.

That's about all I got right now. Feel free to add.

Modifié par CanadAvenger, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:34 .

[Ulzeraj]

CanadAvenger wrote...

[*]The detail of the planets when viewing their codex entries was excellent in ME1. It made it much more realistic. Going to the surface and exploring more so, but after a while it got repetative. In ME2, the only planets that had significant detail (in my opinion) was the planets in the Sol system, and all the hub worlds. The rest seemed generic (the exception being gas giants. Gas giants are likely to be somewhat similar to each other).

Jupiter's animated texture is gorgeous on ME2. The other gas giants just seem like those textures Celestia applies to unknown planets. But I think its asking too much to add detailed textures on imaginary random gas giants.

It would be cool (for the astronomer wanna-be in me think it would be cool anyway) if the description contained the mass of the planet. Also, the class and size of its parent star.

And btw... scale was weird on ME2. I know size != mass but I remember some planets being larger than its parent star and this is weird.

Thats just random ****ing. I don't think its uber important to waste resources on so much detail.

[CanadAvenger]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Jupiter's animated texture is gorgeous on ME2. The other gas giants just seem like those textures Celestia applies to unknown planets. But I think its asking too much to add detailed textures on imaginary random gas giants.

It would be cool (for the astronomer wanna-be in me think it would be cool anyway) if the description contained the mass of the planet. Also, the class and size of its parent star.

And btw... scale was weird on ME2. I know size != mass but I remember some planets being larger than its parent star and this is weird.

Thats just random ****ing. I don't think its uber important to waste resources on so much detail.

That's what I had said. The planets in the Sol system were textured well (and rightly so).
I also said that gas giants would likely look similar to each other. I should have rephrased that and said that if there was significant detail described in the codex, then that detail should be present on the planet itself.

Like I said in my post, that only applied to the Sol system and hub worlds.

And you're right about the scale. However if they were true to it, the star would take up the entire screen and it would be extremely difficult to find the planets. Either that or the star would be decent sized, but the planets would be microscopic.
On average, anyway.

[Ulzeraj]

CanadAvenger wrote...
And you're right about the scale. However if they were true to it, the star would take up the entire screen and it would be extremely difficult to find the planets. Either that or the star would be decent sized, but the planets would be microscopic.
On average, anyway.

Nith(?) on the Krogan DMZ is on the limit of a B class (14.9 sun masses) star and it almost takes the entire screen heh. I don't think the scale is that hard to do considering most of the stars we visited on ME2 are M red dwarfs or C-F sun-sized stars and they didnt failed anyway. Its just that a small number of gas giants were strangely bigger than the parent star.

Anyway I should had expressed myself better. I agree with everything you said.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 29 janvier 2011 - 02:42 .

[CanadAvenger]

Ulzeraj wrote...

CanadAvenger wrote...
And you're right about the scale. However if they were true to it, the star would take up the entire screen and it would be extremely difficult to find the planets. Either that or the star would be decent sized, but the planets would be microscopic.
On average, anyway.

Nith(?) on the Krogan DMZ is on the limit of a B class (14.9 sun masses) star and it almost takes the entire screen heh. I don't think the scale is that hard to do considering most of the stars we visited on ME2 are M red dwarfs or C-F sun-sized stars and they didnt failed anyway. Its just that a small number of gas giants were strangely bigger than the parent star.

Anyway I should had expressed myself better. I agree with everything you said.

I'll be honest. I have no idea what star classes are and what the scaling should be. But you're right about the gas giants being monstrous. There are a couple though that are "brown dwarfs" which are failed stars orbiting right close to the star itself. Scale wise, I don't know if they should be similar in size, but there are real brown dwarfs (dwarves?) that orbit in that fashion, if those are the ones you're thinking of.

Anyway... Doesn't matter too much, IMO.

[Ulzeraj]

CanadAvenger wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

CanadAvenger wrote...
And you're right about the scale. However if they were true to it, the star would take up the entire screen and it would be extremely difficult to find the planets. Either that or the star would be decent sized, but the planets would be microscopic.
On average, anyway.

Nith(?) on the Krogan DMZ is on the limit of a B class (14.9 sun masses) star and it almost takes the entire screen heh. I don't think the scale is that hard to do considering most of the stars we visited on ME2 are M red dwarfs or C-F sun-sized stars and they didnt failed anyway. Its just that a small number of gas giants were strangely bigger than the parent star.

Anyway I should had expressed myself better. I agree with everything you said.

I'll be honest. I have no idea what star classes are and what the scaling should be. But you're right about the gas giants being monstrous. There are a couple though that are "brown dwarfs" which are failed stars orbiting right close to the star itself. Scale wise, I don't know if they should be similar in size, but there are real brown dwarfs (dwarves?) that orbit in that fashion, if those are the ones you're thinking of.

Anyway... Doesn't matter too much, IMO.

Red dwarves are M, orangish-cooler-than-Sol are classified as K, Sol is G. Above this we have F (yellow-white) stars, A (white, very massive) and B (blue, very massive like Nith) and finally O stars which are insanely massive.

Those are the main-sequence "normal" stars. When a star uses all its hydrogen it starts to fuse heavier materials releasing more energy and causing it to grow in size and be classified as a Red Giant, a dying star. It will fuse helium, then heavier materials until it blows into something weird like a white dwarf, neutron star or a black hole depending on the mass of the star. On ME2 you visit Halestorm, a red giant, to recruit Tali.


I remember only 3 brown dwarves: the reaper mission with the funky name and the Omega binary system. I don't remember where the third is but its description doesn't say it is a brown dwarf... only that if failed to initiate fusion.  None of them looks like those giant gas giants (hehe) we're discussing.

Yeah... I've readed every damn planet description during my first playthrough.

You're right doen't matter. I'm discussing just for the sake of curiosity.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:23 .

[Razor_Zeng]

matt-bassist wrote...

ive only read the OPs post, so someone migh have posted this already. but i assume the reason they took away the cursor and replaced it with a mini ship you have to fly around was because using a console controller to move a mouse cursor around is annoying. so to appeal to the console crowd, they made you 'control' a little ship instead of moving a cursor and clicking.

Played ME1 on 360 and had no trouble what so ever moving the cursor around to select what ever planet/asteroid/space station/star system I wanted. It was easy to manuver around and find anything. You could even choose to do little twirly circles with it if you wanted to.

The ship on the other hand was annoying as hell.  "Hey Im flying a little ship! .. whippde doo :/ "

[Stupidus]

I hated getting fuel, but thought the mining minigame and getting minerals was fun. I wish more minerals could have been found from missions though, and they also would have had more 'impossible' to attain upgrades (like the l337 upgrades costing 100K+ minerals).

[The Spamming Troll]

personally i liked flying the mini normandy around. it was kindof cool to me atleast. although i did think when i bought the thanax canon, the shields, and the armor, that my mini normandy would have some cool new look to it.

it also woulda been cool to play a sortof galaxy wars type game with the normandy and needing to upgrade it like you normally would. or maybe it woulda been lame.

i also never understood why i couldnt just buy more platinum or iridium with the credits i had. i have all these credits, but its too bad i needed all that platinum, so why cant i just buy some, or sell some iridium to get more platinum. ....wait a minute, what the hell am i mining platinum for in the first place?!?!? im comander shepard, not a probe launcher.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 29 janvier 2011 - 04:19 .