346 réponses à ce sujet

[Sailears]

^It's an excellent idea, but the thing is I'm not keen on the omni-tool being always on in combat.

[SalsaDMA]

II J0SePh X II wrote...
"Most third-person video games still give you an obtrusive HUD that pretty much takes away the feeling of immersion."

I find it an oxymoron to talk about 'lack of immersion' while wanting to stick to a 3rd person perspective.

3rd person perspective is to get a better feel for your surroundings , rather than immerse yourself in the game. If you want immersion, you go 1st person, otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your rear. (and no, links to people saying something about a game that is totally different in both game-play as well as thematic perspective shouldn't have any bearing on a discussion pertaining ME mechanics)

Let's for a second asume that there actually have been some development in squad based minded technology up to the timeframe that ME depicts. This would make it REALLY plausible for the helmets/visors/glasses/gadgets/whatever people use near their eyes to actually convey the needed data on a HuD there. However, since we are viewing the action in 3rd person, we would have a rather hard time to discern data on the inside of the visor helmet of Shepard. Thus an overlay HuD on OUR screen, to show US what Shepard sees on his/her visor.

Starting to display various places on your armour what the status of you and your squad members would be a huge immersion breaker. Not only would it be a bastard to get a reading from during heated combat where your character is moving his/her body all the time, but the tactical implication would be downright stupid.

I mean.. Seriously... Which special ops team would plaster each of their members with VISUAL indicators of all their team assets for EVERYONE to see? You might as well shout to the enemy whenever you run out of ammo so they can pluck you down without worry or the like, or what kind of ammo/powers you are using so they can counter it. I can easy envision it, the enemies going: "Oh, his suit tells me he is at full health, but his squadmate only needs a single pop. Maybe I should focus on that guy instead right now..."

There's enough games out there where you have to actively fight the interface into giving you the data you want from it, instead of the interface working with you to give you the required data fast and easy.

Please, PLEASE, let us not turn ME into one of those as well...

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 28 mars 2011 - 12:41 .

[Terror_K]

I definitely don't want to see my Shepard plastered in a dozen holograms just to get the info across. I'd rather just have a proper HUD. Again, the ME1 was fine: clear, concise with just the right amount of info... no more, no less. None of this "let's try and integrate the HUD into the surroundings" minimalistic BS that only serves to make things look stupid and confusing while not giving enough information.

[Les_Carver]

I don't believe having ammo and health in Shep's back (a la Death Space) is really a
good idea, I'd preffer to have a similar version of ME2's hud, but with more
clear, simple health and shield bars for squadmates.

And maybe, instead of bothering to put a line in Shep's back a la Ser Issac of Clarke, why
not use the armor "LEDs" to show Shep's status? Blue=Shields up
Yellow=No shields and taking damage Red=Hurt

OR

I insist again on this idea, the removal of those meaningless red veins that appear when you're hurt, and replace them with something allusive to an important in-game element, like for example, Harbinger's lens flares appearing at some point in the middle of the screen, like this
[/quote]

Modifié par Les_Carver, 28 mars 2011 - 12:53 .

[packardbell]

I only hope they get rid of those crappy, cheap looking veins.

[Jebel Krong]

SalsaDMA wrote...

II J0SePh X II wrote...
"Most third-person video games still give you an obtrusive HUD that pretty much takes away the feeling of immersion."

I find it an oxymoron to talk about 'lack of immersion' while wanting to stick to a 3rd person perspective.

3rd person perspective is to get a better feel for your surroundings , rather than immerse yourself in the game. If you want immersion, you go 1st person, otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your rear. (and no, links to people saying something about a game that is totally different in both game-play as well as thematic perspective shouldn't have any bearing on a discussion pertaining ME mechanics)

actually 3rd person perspective is just as immersive as 1st: for a start seeing your character on-screen allows for far more empathy and identification than never seeing yourself (except in reflection/whatever) - this is particularly important in an rpg-type game that mass effect is. this goes all the way back to the first proper 3-d games, too: tomb raider et al chose 3rd person view for precisely these reasons.

[SalsaDMA]

Jebel Krong wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

II J0SePh X II wrote...
"Most third-person video games still give you an obtrusive HUD that pretty much takes away the feeling of immersion."

I find it an oxymoron to talk about 'lack of immersion' while wanting to stick to a 3rd person perspective.

3rd person perspective is to get a better feel for your surroundings , rather than immerse yourself in the game. If you want immersion, you go 1st person, otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your rear. (and no, links to people saying something about a game that is totally different in both game-play as well as thematic perspective shouldn't have any bearing on a discussion pertaining ME mechanics)

actually 3rd person perspective is just as immersive as 1st: for a start seeing your character on-screen allows for far more empathy and identification than never seeing yourself (except in reflection/whatever) - this is particularly important in an rpg-type game that mass effect is. this goes all the way back to the first proper 3-d games, too: tomb raider et al chose 3rd person view for precisely these reasons.

There's nothing 'immersive' with 3rd person. What is IS however, is a superior interface than 1st person to convey info to the player about the character he/she is controlling. Ie. In 1st person, you are only aware of what you can 'see' through the eyes of the character, or his field of view. In 3rd person, you are able to better see what is going on as well with your character. Take Sheploo sitting behind cover, back to cover, head tilted to the side, waiting for an opening in the fire to pop out to return fire.

From the player in 3rd person, the camera is the same direction all the time, giving a superior awareness of what is happening, letting the player pick the exact right moment to pop out by letting him see visual data that is not available to Shepard.

From the player in 1st person, however, he most likely wouldn't be sitting with his back against the cover to start with, but more hunch front faced down behind the cover, looking straigth into a large block of cover obstructing him/her from seeing anything, much less know when the oppoenets are stopping firing. audioble cues are needed by the player to discern that, and this is still a guesswork at most, much like Shepard him/herself would have had to do. And if a cover model was used that actually made shepard have his back towards the cover, popping out to fire a few shots would result in a swirly mess of the camera as it did a 180 degree turn in a second or less, forced the player to make a quick visual glance of what he could see, fire a few shots while hoping he manages to aim the gun at something relevant, before swirling the camera back again without being able to really see anything.

Claiming 3rd person is more immersive is just wrong, regardless of who claims it.

You can claim it gives a feel that is closer to movies (and even here you would be wrong, as movies rarely actually use a 3rd person, but more often a lot of different angles all the time that would be close to impossible for actual gameplay to being possible), but let us not confuse movies and immersion with each other, shall we?

[II J0SePh X II]

SalsaDMA wrote...

II J0SePh X II wrote...
"Most third-person video games still give you an obtrusive HUD that pretty much takes away the feeling of immersion."

I find it an oxymoron to talk about 'lack of immersion' while wanting to stick to a 3rd person perspective.

3rd person perspective is to get a better feel for your surroundings , rather than immerse yourself in the game. If you want immersion, you go 1st person, otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your rear. (and no, links to people saying something about a game that is totally different in both game-play as well as thematic perspective shouldn't have any bearing on a discussion pertaining ME mechanics)

 
I play third and first person games for different gameplay experiences, not levels of immersion. Even first person games vary in regards to immersion. Crysis 2 is far more immersive than Homefront atm, because of the way the story and missions are delivered. I don't think Homefront or the CoD franchise deliver an immersive experience at all. Too much "follow Mr Invincible who's immune to bullets" for those games to even register on the immersion scale.

I'd put Crysis 2 and Dead Space 2 on a par with each other. There's a viable reason for information being where it is from the point of view of both the player and the protagonist. In Crysis 2, it's the nanosuit visor - in Dead Space, it is the Holos. The only reason to have info on your screen is to help you play a video game - immersion broken - whether that be third or first person games.

[SalsaDMA]

II J0SePh X II wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

II J0SePh X II wrote...
"Most third-person video games still give you an obtrusive HUD that pretty much takes away the feeling of immersion."

I find it an oxymoron to talk about 'lack of immersion' while wanting to stick to a 3rd person perspective.

3rd person perspective is to get a better feel for your surroundings , rather than immerse yourself in the game. If you want immersion, you go 1st person, otherwise you are just pulling stuff out of your rear. (and no, links to people saying something about a game that is totally different in both game-play as well as thematic perspective shouldn't have any bearing on a discussion pertaining ME mechanics)

 
I play third and first person games for different gameplay experiences, not levels of immersion. Even first person games vary in regards to immersion. Crysis 2 is far more immersive than Homefront atm, because of the way the story and missions are delivered. I don't think Homefront or the CoD franchise deliver an immersive experience at all. Too much "follow Mr Invincible who's immune to bullets" for those games to even register on the immersion scale.

I'd put Crysis 2 and Dead Space 2 on a par with each other. There's a viable reason for information being where it is from the point of view of both the player and the protagonist. In Crysis 2, it's the nanosuit visor - in Dead Space, it is the Holos. The only reason to have info on your screen is to help you play a video game - immersion broken - whether that be third or first person games.

I haven't tried the specific games you mention (although I tried DS1 and Crysis1), but I agree on your end analysis.

[Jebel Krong]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

actually 3rd person perspective is just as immersive as 1st: for a start seeing your character on-screen allows for far more empathy and identification than never seeing yourself (except in reflection/whatever) - this is particularly important in an rpg-type game that mass effect is. this goes all the way back to the first proper 3-d games, too: tomb raider et al chose 3rd person view for precisely these reasons.

There's nothing 'immersive' with 3rd person. What is IS however, is a superior interface than 1st person to convey info to the player about the character he/she is controlling. Ie. In 1st person, you are only aware of what you can 'see' through the eyes of the character, or his field of view. In 3rd person, you are able to better see what is going on as well with your character. Take Sheploo sitting behind cover, back to cover, head tilted to the side, waiting for an opening in the fire to pop out to return fire.

*snip*

Claiming 3rd person is more immersive is just wrong, regardless of who claims it.

You can claim it gives a feel that is closer to movies (and even here you would be wrong, as movies rarely actually use a 3rd person, but more often a lot of different angles all the time that would be close to impossible for actual gameplay to being possible), but let us not confuse movies and immersion with each other, shall we?

level of immersion is down to the game, i gave examples of just how 3rd person view can be used to improve immersion compared to 1st person viewpoints, try reading comprehension first though. personally i don't care which perspective is taken as they both have pros and cons and depend entirely on the gametype and experience - don't post BS opinion as fact and you won't get called on it.

[SalsaDMA]

Jebel Krong wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

actually 3rd person perspective is just as immersive as 1st: for a start seeing your character on-screen allows for far more empathy and identification than never seeing yourself (except in reflection/whatever) - this is particularly important in an rpg-type game that mass effect is. this goes all the way back to the first proper 3-d games, too: tomb raider et al chose 3rd person view for precisely these reasons.

There's nothing 'immersive' with 3rd person. What is IS however, is a superior interface than 1st person to convey info to the player about the character he/she is controlling. Ie. In 1st person, you are only aware of what you can 'see' through the eyes of the character, or his field of view. In 3rd person, you are able to better see what is going on as well with your character. Take Sheploo sitting behind cover, back to cover, head tilted to the side, waiting for an opening in the fire to pop out to return fire.

*snip*

Claiming 3rd person is more immersive is just wrong, regardless of who claims it.

You can claim it gives a feel that is closer to movies (and even here you would be wrong, as movies rarely actually use a 3rd person, but more often a lot of different angles all the time that would be close to impossible for actual gameplay to being possible), but let us not confuse movies and immersion with each other, shall we?

level of immersion is down to the game, i gave examples of just how 3rd person view can be used to improve immersion compared to 1st person viewpoints, try reading comprehension first though. personally i don't care which perspective is taken as they both have pros and cons and depend entirely on the gametype and experience - don't post BS opinion as fact and you won't get called on it.

I'm sure, but there is no immersion gained for me by looking at a female artificially enlargened chest while playing a game, as I'm a guy. So regarding your 'reading comprehension' comment, you can shove it, as it was a non-issue to start with. I'll gladly re-iterate from my post, though, in case you had trouble picking it up, despite it being part of your quote: "Claiming 3rd person is more immersive is just wrong, regardless of who claims it.
"

[Powgow]

I think 3rd person gives a more cinematic feel, you are playing an interactive movie. A HUD breaks that feeling, and thats why it is more superior interface wise then mass effect (in my opinion)

[stonbw1]

Regarding the ME2 HUD, my review is that I never knew the health/shield status of my squadmates; in other words, it wasn't obvious. I'm sure others have voiced that concern in the previous 10 pages, but here's my add. The only time I knew something was wrong is when they turned grey.

[Raanz]

Here's another vote for the Dead Space 2 type of HUD. If they could figure a way to relay your squadmate status to you in a similar fashion, I'm on board.

[SalsaDMA]

Powgow wrote...

I think 3rd person gives a more cinematic feel, you are playing an interactive movie. A HUD breaks that feeling, and thats why it is more superior interface wise then mass effect (in my opinion)

And when you can't read the data you need from your interface, what then? Still superior?

*shakes head*

If you want to play DS, play DS. If you want to play a squadbased game with alot more going on during combat than in DS, you can play ME.

Just because both are in 3rd person you shouldn't start thinking they are the same game types. They are not. Even the pace when shooting a single hostile is different, let alone the rest of the game mechanics and pacings...

What's next? Apply DS interface for RTS games that are rendered in 3d as well despite that too is a totally different gamestyle, just like ME is compared to DS? Would it be too much to ask people to read about some of the considerations the devs have already done on this subject that showed them how cumbersome it was to adapt a DS style of interface to ME without massive changes to the game?

[shinobi602]

Put up my vote for a Dead Space like HUD.

Nothing beats it in my opinion. It's ingenious.

[vimpel]

It's possible on unreal engine . Take a look at this one forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php : The UDK tutorials how to make 3d hud

[bjorna]

vimpel wrote...

It's possible on unreal engine . Take a look at this one forums.epicgames.com/showthread.php : The UDK tutorials how to make 3d hud

Just because it is possible (by the way, any programmer/UI designer with some self-respect could have done this anyway) doesn't mean that you should do it. 

I fully agree with SalsaDMA, you can't say that DS and ME are the same gametypes and should be played just the same because the camera is 3 feet behind the protagonist. The HUD, or lack of one, in DS works because an overlay HUD would destroy that cramped feeling that makes DS great. But i doesn't mean that you should put it in ME as well. 

[Jebel Krong]

SalsaDMA wrote...

I'm sure, but there is no immersion gained for me by looking at a female artificially enlargened chest while playing a game, as I'm a guy. So regarding your 'reading comprehension' comment, you can shove it, as it was a non-issue to start with. I'll gladly re-iterate from my post, though, in case you had trouble picking it up, despite it being part of your quote: "Claiming 3rd person is more immersive is just wrong, regardless of who claims it.
"

still just your opinion, not FACT, i quoted it to point that out, just like i have. again. sadly you missed that little fact. AGAIN.

[SalsaDMA]

Jebel Krong wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

I'm sure, but there is no immersion gained for me by looking at a female artificially enlargened chest while playing a game, as I'm a guy. So regarding your 'reading comprehension' comment, you can shove it, as it was a non-issue to start with. I'll gladly re-iterate from my post, though, in case you had trouble picking it up, despite it being part of your quote: "Claiming 3rd person is more immersive is just wrong, regardless of who claims it.
"

still just your opinion, not FACT, i quoted it to point that out, just like i have. again. sadly you missed that little fact. AGAIN.

So you literally feel that 3rd person is more immersive than 1st person, everything else regardless?

Something tells me we have quite different perceptions of what the word 'immersion' means.

You are ofc entitled to your opinion that viewing yourself and your suroundings from an external angle/viewpoint is more 'immersive' than viewing out through your eyes; Just don't start saying it is of equal validity as a 'fact' by trying to claim facts are opinions.

At this point, you sound like someone that would retort: "that's your opinion" when faced with the statement that "water is a liquid in its natural form".

[Frumyfrenzy]

People argue a lot about the immersion, the HuD and the User Interface in general. I share this point of view: It would be a gain for immersion if there were as few elements on screen as possible that would break the fourth wall if the character you're playing would recognize them. HuD elements on screen have mostly been for the eyes of the player only and it would be more than weird if Shep recognized them. Therefore, for me the rule for designing a HuD and a User Interface should be: As few elements as possible that are for the eyes of the player only. Going by this general rule of UI design, Dead Space did an amazing job.

Immersion in this sense has nothing to do with first person or third person. It's just that everything on screen should belong to the world your character is in and accessible by your character. For example, in ME the questlog/codex is for players only, in Dead Space you have Isaac looking up his mission details (seeing him doing so!). What was done using this guidelines?

- Inventory (Dead Space)
- Questlog (Dead Space)
- Health (Dead Space)
- Ammunition (Dead Space)
- Weapon Upgrades (Dead Space)
- Messages (Dead Space; Sheps Laptop)

Whether or not every necessary information for the player can be integrated this way, I don't know. But Dead Space took me by surprise the way it handled those things. So, for instance, who is against Shep using his/her omni-tool to access the codex and seeing Shep reading the codex as a holopraphic projection? 


  

Modifié par Frumyfrenzy, 28 mars 2011 - 10:20 .

[Xan Kreigor Mk2]

One of the biggest things missing from the hud in ME2 was the minimap (imo). dead space has the advantage there, because its a horror game, you shouldnt have one. Mass effect, on the other hand, really needs one (radial wheel doesnt count).

if it could be integrated into the hudless version, i think more people than just I would be happy.

But, without a doubt, dead spaces hud definitely helps the games' immersion

[Frumyfrenzy]

I always thought a mini map in ME is unnecessary. It would make more sense, if there were tactical options involved or a briefing for a mission, where you get the layout of the base/buidling/planet/whatever shown. But ME's levels a re linear, only one route to go. If we had options, Shep should bring up the omni-tool and look at a nice *drumroll* holograhic projection. That's what the omni-tool is for, right? =)

[Admoniter]

Les_Carver wrote...
And maybe, instead of bothering to put a line in Shep's back a la Ser Issac of Clarke, why
not use the armor "LEDs" to show Shep's status? Blue=Shields up
Yellow=No shields and taking damage Red=Hurt

This IMO is the one problem minimalist or immersive HUDs run into quite often. I.e. not clearly displaying the required information. Blue, Yellow and Red are not enough to display how much health I have. Unless of-course there are only four states of health shields, no shields, hurt, dead; thankfully that is not the case. Color by itself does not display nearly enough information, it is just color, sure it works as a rough indicator good for a quick glance but beyond that it isn't uesful. Dead Space did get it right in that respect, you have bars of health which are augmented with the colored lights useful as a rough indicator of your status.

I insist again on this idea, the removal of those meaningless red veins that appear when you're hurt, and replace them with something allusive to an important in-game element, like for example, Harbinger's lens flares appearing at some point in the middle of the screen, like this

I am going to respectfully disagree, now this may be my own personal bias, but anything that blocks or heavily obscures (GOW cog) my FOV is bad. The veins are just as bad because they look horribly out of place with the art style of ME in general but also becuase the last thing I want when near death is tunnel vision. I think ME1 did it right Sheps heartbeat got louder, everything on the screen started to red shift, the edges of the screen became blurry, your health bar had a little ECG pop up. The only other things I could ask for is that when in Critical Health have Shep limp, or hold their sides while out of combat and obscure the players hearing.

Modifié par Admoniter, 28 mars 2011 - 11:28 .

[Akizora]

I really like how you made waypoints in Overlord with the Firewalker, an arrow showing up inside the world to point you in the direction of the nearest waypoint. Re-introducing this to Shepard would also be great, that you could mark a mission with a waypoint (assuming Shepard knows the actual destination, otherwise it shouldn't point all the way to it obviously.)

This would be pretty cool cause if a lot of quests are cluttered and you're in a HUB where you want to turn them in or progress a lot of them at the same time it can become pretty tedious to run around without knowing where who is.

Also although this isn't the actual thread to point this out, but sometimes when partymembers start to talk about vistas or observations in general areas in Mass Effect 2. They would often be interrupted by a random person, like the Volus that wants a lot of power, and speed. Then they would stop talking and I missed out on that entire sentence since I can't click again.