104 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

Pyrate_d wrote...

It's funny how some of you act like meaningless, repetitive tasks are enjoyable to a "true gamer," while people who want fun, fluid gameplay are the vastly inferior "shooter fanbase."

In an rpg, it can't always be full speed ahead, gunz a blazin'. There's planning and statistics to consider. Possible plot derivations, tactics in combat. These would appear meaningless to a friend of mine who plays FPS religiously. They aren't to me.

But if you refer to driving the Mako over yet another mountain top in ME1, then I agree.



Edit: that was a really poor post actually. There is plenty of tactical thinking in first person shooters.

Modifié par slimgrin, 23 décembre 2010 - 02:22 .

[Sparda Stonerule]

I felt that the bigness of ME 1 was a lie. Every single time I replay it I feel it more and more. It never ends. Besides every planet you land on in the game someone has been there beforehand. How do I know that? Because everyone has at least 1 of the 3 types of bases. Also every single one has one AND ONLY ONE debris pile for you to scavenge. I'm not some space explorer jetting around the Galaxy to see the sights. I'm an Elite Marine out to save the Galaxy. At least in Mass Effect 2 we were dropped within walking distance of all our goals in the sidequests.

I don't mind exploration as long as it is appropriate for the game and as long as it isn't a bloody lie. Everything that was vast and open in Mass Effect 1 was a lie put forward as something huge and impressive. I mean every single time we land it was ALWAYS the same size plot of land we could cover. It was never different. There were no lakes, and only one side planet had lava on it. Every single planet had jagged mountains that were tedious to climb.

I love Mass Effect 1, but all that wide open exploration changed nothing. I vastly preferred the varied landscapes of Mass Effect 2. Also no I don't mind vehicle planets. I just prefer a mix of both so long as the planets FEEL different. Given that a red box closed us into exactly the same dimensions every time every planet felt the same. I posit that planets feeling drastically different lends to Galactic size way more than a lot of same sized zones. Just my opinions.

[kmcd5722]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

I agree, ME1 felt endless. ME2 feels too constrained... Typical of a "shooter" eh?

-Polite

Yeah, the vastness of space feeling was totally lost in ME2.  I know that in the pre-release vids they were trying to convey a darker, more cramped galaxy, but in the end, I just felt claustrophobic and unimpressed with the linearity.

[kmcd5722]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...
I love Mass Effect 1, but all that wide open exploration changed nothing. I vastly preferred the varied landscapes of Mass Effect 2. Also no I don't mind vehicle planets. I just prefer a mix of both so long as the planets FEEL different. Given that a red box closed us into exactly the same dimensions every time every planet felt the same. I posit that planets feeling drastically different lends to Galactic size way more than a lot of same sized zones. Just my opinions.

I feel ya on the variety and fleshed out environments, and it was definitely a plus in ME2.  But having the openness stripped out made the game too linear (for me) and cramped.

[spock06]

shinobi602 wrote...

Orkboy wrote...

For me, ME2 was too compartmentalised, it just came across as a load of unrelated linear self-contained levels.

I agree with this. Something about ME1's scope made it feel...vast... different than ME2.

 The only area that captured this feeling in ME2 was the collector ship, which felt enormous and creepy and had great music and ambience.    ME1 conveyed a sense of being in outer space that was missing from ME2 for its majority.

I think bioware knows this and I can't wait to see how they put it back into ME3. 

[spock06]

kmcd5722 wrote...

Sparda Stonerule wrote...
I love Mass Effect 1, but all that wide open exploration changed nothing. I vastly preferred the varied landscapes of Mass Effect 2. Also no I don't mind vehicle planets. I just prefer a mix of both so long as the planets FEEL different. Given that a red box closed us into exactly the same dimensions every time every planet felt the same. I posit that planets feeling drastically different lends to Galactic size way more than a lot of same sized zones. Just my opinions.

I feel ya on the variety and fleshed out environments, and it was definitely a plus in ME2.  But having the openness stripped out made the game too linear (for me) and cramped.

The solution is to convey the feeling of a huge, explorable world while retaining the ability to quickly get where you're going.  The need for fluid, engaging gameplay doesn't rule out a large environment.  Does WoW's world feel small just because you can fly over it?

Mass Effect had a vision of being in space from the first 30 seconds up until the final showdown.  The combat improved in 2, but the first had much larger world, including the main story arc areas.  

[kmcd5722]

spock06 wrote...

The solution is to convey the feeling of a huge, explorable world while retaining the ability to quickly get where you're going.  The need for fluid, engaging gameplay doesn't rule out a large environment.  Does WoW's world feel small just because you can fly over it?

Mass Effect had a vision of being in space from the first 30 seconds up until the final showdown.  The combat improved in 2, but the first had much larger world, including the main story arc areas.  

Which is what I am hoping for in ME3.  Best of both worlds from ME1 and ME2.  Use both effectively.  I loved the openness in ME1, but I will admit at times I wish I just had a linear path for some of it.  On the other hand, not all of it, which was the sad case for ME2.  I will take ME1's style of exploration over ME2 anyday, as a side note.

[Alphyn]

I wouldn't count on planet exploration in ME3. After all, this is BioWare.

[Sparda Stonerule]

Let's see. Noveria had one business office you could get into even though it was supposed to be a huge business hub. It also only had one shop. Then there was the mountain pass and then finally Peak 15. Peak 15 made enough sense. Feros had the town, and then some needlessly long tunnels, then the sky bridge, then the Tower. Except the tower never really felt like a place where one would do business. Therum was just... a mine. Nothing wrong with it but it wasn't big. Virmire and Ilos made a lot more sense.

I am just saying having something that is big and open without it making sense is not the best way to do anything. Especially when your character is not a space explorer. They have a pretty specific task to stop Saren. I'm just saying giving the impression of big is fine, but it also leaves a lot to be desired from all that nothing that comes with the vastness.

[88mphSlayer]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I'm genuinely surprised to see people lamenting the loss of planet exploration in ME1. Each square-mile of planet was cut and pasted. Okay, the skyboxes were unique, but beyond that it was all cut and pasted. Apparently every planet in the galaxy is comprised mainly of vertical cliffs separated by flat plains where Thresher Maws live. There were maybe half a dozen different ground textures. And of course the infamous mine/warehouse sections. I find it really hard to believe these terrains gave anyone a sense of space and scale; they had the exact opposite effect on me. It was like the movie Groundhog Day.

And I mean no offense but really, anyone who visited every single planet on foot needs treatment for OCD and should not be consulted on how to make a good video game.

i dunno scanning in ME2 is more OCD than driving the mako in ME1, although i guess if you felt you needed to find every mineral in ME1 then yeah... that's really OCD

[slimgrin]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Let's see. Noveria had one business office you could get into even though it was supposed to be a huge business hub. It also only had one shop. Then there was the mountain pass and then finally Peak 15. Peak 15 made enough sense. Feros had the town, and then some needlessly long tunnels, then the sky bridge, then the Tower. Except the tower never really felt like a place where one would do business. Therum was just... a mine. Nothing wrong with it but it wasn't big. Virmire and Ilos made a lot more sense.
I am just saying having something that is big and open without it making sense is not the best way to do anything. Especially when your character is not a space explorer. They have a pretty specific task to stop Saren. I'm just saying giving the impression of big is fine, but it also leaves a lot to be desired from all that nothing that comes with the vastness.

Exploration requires 'downtime', when you're not actually killing things, and well, exploring. It's how the real world feels too. Otherwise it's, GO TO POINT A THEN FOLLOW NEON SIGN TO POINT B. THIS IS VIDEO GAME LEVEL BY THE WAY> THANX. 

[88mphSlayer]

Sparda Stonerule wrote...

Let's see. Noveria had one business office you could get into even though it was supposed to be a huge business hub. It also only had one shop. Then there was the mountain pass and then finally Peak 15. Peak 15 made enough sense. Feros had the town, and then some needlessly long tunnels, then the sky bridge, then the Tower. Except the tower never really felt like a place where one would do business. Therum was just... a mine. Nothing wrong with it but it wasn't big. Virmire and Ilos made a lot more sense.
I am just saying having something that is big and open without it making sense is not the best way to do anything. Especially when your character is not a space explorer. They have a pretty specific task to stop Saren. I'm just saying giving the impression of big is fine, but it also leaves a lot to be desired from all that nothing that comes with the vastness.

having all those gunfights within ear shot of C-sec didn't make much sense either, which is why i think ME2 is more fleshed out and realistic... i think what would've pleased some people tho was just removing some fmv's or loading screens and actually showing you travelling through ilium or omega to the seedy violent destinations or just making all those side quest planets you have to find by chance anyways into mako-esque exploration missions (they were structured like the ones in ME1 anyways, just instead you landed right at the building)

[Googlesaurus]

88mphSlayer wrote...

having all those gunfights within ear shot of C-sec didn't make much sense either, which is why i think ME2 is more fleshed out and realistic... i think what would've pleased some people tho was just removing some fmv's or loading screens and actually showing you travelling through ilium or omega to the seedy violent destinations or just making all those side quest planets you have to find by chance anyways into mako-esque exploration missions (they were structured like the ones in ME1 anyways, just instead you landed right at the building)

As opposed to Shepard's Pistol of Doom in ME2 cutscenes? The insta-loyalty mission to romance dialogue paths? Skintight catsuits and heavy armor having the same number of hitpoints? They're not that far apart in terms of realism. 

C-Sec only exists on the Citadel.

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 23 décembre 2010 - 03:35 .

[onelifecrisis]

AwesomeName wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I'm genuinely surprised to see people lamenting the loss of planet exploration in ME1. Each square-mile of planet was cut and pasted. Okay, the skyboxes were unique, but beyond that it was all cut and pasted. Apparently every planet in the galaxy is comprised mainly of vertical cliffs separated by flat plains where Thresher Maws live. There were maybe half a dozen different ground textures. And of course the infamous mine/warehouse sections. I find it really hard to believe these terrains gave anyone a sense of space and scale; they had the exact opposite effect on me. It was like the movie Groundhog Day.

And I mean no offense but really, anyone who visited every single planet on foot needs treatment for OCD and should not be consulted on how to make a good video game.

i dunno scanning in ME2 is more OCD than driving the mako in ME1, although i guess if you felt you needed to find every mineral in ME1 then yeah... that's really OCD

Onelifecrisis didn't say mineral scanning was better - (s)he probably dislikes them both for the same reason.

Indeed. I'm currently playing through ME2 with than plan of not scanning anything except the four planet locations found in LotSB.

A lot of people seem to overlook the fact that planet scanning from orbit existed in ME1. It's not some new thing, it's just a lot more tedious in ME2 than it was in ME1.

In any case planet scanning is beside the point.  This thread is about loading screens and level design and planet scanning has nothing to do with that discussion.

[alickar]

well this isnt a sand box

its supposed to be small...deal with it

[JedTed]

Urazz wrote...

I think that while ME1 felt bigger in scope, it felt emptier too compared to ME2.  ME2 areas, while smaller did feel a bit fuller in content and stuff going on.  The Presidium on the Citadel in ME1 is a good example.  It felt huge on the presidium and made the citadel feel huge but it felt empty cause you didn't see all that much traffic or alot of people for such a big area.

I agree, the Wards on the Citadel are supposed to be like densely packed cities but they'res allways the same number of NPCs scattered through all the hub areas.  ME2 is a little better with the way they put a bunch of generic NPCs on unreachable levels(like on Illium for instance) but i wish they could move around more, it'd make those areas feel more alive.

If only there was some way to impliment Assassin's Creed's dynamic crowd system then that would be awsome!

[sympathy4saren]

Agree. However, I believe that a semi-linear level design also contributes.

[Ahglock]

88mphSlayer wrote...

to be fair to ME2 it's a far more personal and dark game than ME1 and is a lot more about personal interactions so the confineness of it fits the themes it's trying to go for, i think it's just the vast difference that everybody immediately notices

ME3's trailer indicates the 3rd game will probably be pretty huge in scale, but i doubt we'll ever see something like the mako planet exploration again, i just can't see that fitting into a game about saving earth

edit: on second thought i bet there will be some vehicle combat on earth at some point

Dark?  ME2 is lights and faries compared ot ME1.  Comic bookish mwahaahhah evil isn't dark.  It may be cheesy and fun but it isn't dark.  Jack;s story is about the only really dark thing in the game, and they had evil scientists experimenting on people in ME1 a plenty.  Heck Cerberus went from a fairly dark organization to becomeing Cobra
from GiJoe or a bond villain.  Really matchinhg jumpuits a cerberus logo
on everything no matter where you go?  It is like all the lame cobra
infiltrators with cobra tats.  As for personal, well it gave small personal stories about your crew but very little shepard growth.  So I guess you could call it more personal. 

[Hathur]

Zatwu wrote...

Why not just make the elevator move faster if your system can load faster?

I'm pretty sure it does... for me to get from the citadel tower to the ground floor in Me1 on my pc, it loads up in about 10 seconds.... on Xbox it was like 20+.... also, when I install it on my older computer and try, its like 15+ seconds.

Modifié par Hathur, 23 décembre 2010 - 05:11 .

[kelsjet]

ME 2! felt small

'twas what she said... to your ex.

In all seriousness, ME2 is a larger game than ME1 in terms of actual core content (i.e. the stuff that is relevant to the main story arc).

What made ME1 *seem* larger was the random and inane 1/2 hr treks through empty terrain on that godforsaken 6 wheeled daemon that manages to break most of the laws of physics, which doesn't really add much imho.

What ME2 could have used was a metric ton's worth more side missions, and bigger locations for some of the "world" zones (i.e. Citadel, Ilium, Omega).

That being said; production values, VO work, scripting, atmosphere, and other 'cinematic' based stuff, ME2 beats ME1 hands down.

[Gibb_Shepard]

kelsjet wrote...

ME 2! felt small

'twas what she said... to your ex.

In all seriousness, ME2 is a larger game than ME1 in terms of actual core content (i.e. the stuff that is relevant to the main story arc).

What made ME1 *seem* larger was the random and inane 1/2 hr treks through empty terrain on that godforsaken 6 wheeled daemon that manages to break most of the laws of physics, which doesn't really add much imho.

What ME2 could have used was a metric ton's worth more side missions, and bigger locations for some of the "world" zones (i.e. Citadel, Ilium, Omega).

That being said; production values, VO work, scripting, atmosphere, and other 'cinematic' based stuff, ME2 beats ME1 hands down.

I agree with you on your other points, but ME1 had a far better atmosphere, hands down.

And what made ME1 seem larger was the fact that you weren't teleported everywhere. Wanna go down 1 floor on the normandy? Instead of taking an elevator, you teleport there. Because of this, the SR2 felt like it was 4 different parts, instead of one whole ship. Also the fact that every mission had one path to your objective, one very narrow path. These kind of little things have a drastic effect on how big the game feels.

[Vena_86]

I prefer larger areas where I find content on my own. If everything is linear and everything of interest put in my one-dimensional way it just feels so fake, forced and undeserved. Space is vast, endless and fascinating for that. ME1 was able to portray that like no other game I know of. In the way ME2 tried to be like the average shooter with linear, confined and disjointed levels, it just gave away a lot of potential, that the influencial games could never achieve.

Modifié par Vena_86, 23 décembre 2010 - 11:13 .

[BiancoAngelo7]

At the end of the day, whether you like exploration or not, whether you prefer the mako to the hammerhead or whatever, its about immersion.



In ME1 they did an AWESOME job on immersion, with obvious things that they could improve like another poster said, VO acting, script, armor graphics etc.



In ME2 they did an AWESOME job on production values, cinematic feel of interacting with characters, VO acting, script but then did a HORRIBLE job on immersion, because there was none.



Production values help to make a game great, Immersion turns a game into an experience.



And thats why many people criticize the "shooter" crowd. Because Bioware made a game that their fans appreciated for the immersion above all else, not because the shooting gameplay was so amazing. So for there to be absolutely zero immersion factor in the sequel to ME1 is an ENORMOUS let down.

[Relinquished2]

I agree, timewise ME1 had over 60 hours of gameplay, even with skipping dialogue. ME1 felt huge!



I can beat ME2 in under 25 hours with all quests and DLC packs completed. ME2 felt like a short story to fill the trilogy. We didn't even get to kill a reaper, honestly the story was mediocre compared to ME1 and not worth the game. If it wasn't for Tali's Romance, I would've deleted ME2 and reinstalled ME1 by now.



I'm not getting high hopes for ME3 either. BioWare said it'll be even darker then ME2, but funnier at the same time. WHAT!? the freaking reapers are invading and they want to make the story funnier? And (OMG) I so hope freeing Earth is the beginning of the game, not the end and that we don't kill reapers so often and casually that killing them will not seem all that special anymore.