346 réponses à ce sujet

[Overlord1944]

What you say Salsa, might apply to the first Mass Effect, however ME2 waived the classical inventory system in favor of a loadout system, as I'm sure you know. If Bioware didn't step back to the classical system for ME3, the inventory would be less of a problem.

Of course though, weapon modifications would be a nice to have. Why not refer to the Crysis 1/2 system for that, mounting upgrades directly on the weapon while aboard the Normandy for instance?

But I think that concerning the inventory, you're actually right. The boxes system however is one I really dislike anyway :-).

[Drake_Hound]

I really prefer a ME1 HUD , just updated with beter graphics , I do not prefer the Deadspace 2 cream everything onto a toon , understandable from a designer point of view , and making trailers and walktrough play it is AWESOME selling point .
But from player point of view it is like removing the cross hair from the shoot em up .
Honestly look at modern military , they are all decked out weapons with pintany rails , so for red point dot sight .
Laser aimers , flash lights etc ... having GPS and other options .
Information is power , and this in the end is a game after all .
Where players should have the information to make it enjoyable , instead of frustrating .

• If designers want to implement that system , cause of designer pride , sure but have the option for the player to choose which kind of hud they would like to use .
• Don´t forget a lot of people still are not used to the hectic envoirement of 3D shootemup , and 3D shootemup players are not interested in dialogue options , they just prefer fast singleplayer walktrough .onto multiplayer.

I know my opnion doesn´t account for much , But truthfully try to have the player´s interest at heart , not just oh cool this would be such awesome trailers and walktrough commercials .
Especially this is a not a solo shootemup , but a squad based RPG .. moving away into shootemup with story choices , would not be well recieved by many Mass Effect fans .

Modifié par Drake_Hound, 29 mars 2011 - 10:45 .

[Overlord1944]

I think the concerns expressed by drake_hound are worth taking into account, however wouldn't streamlining the game interface into the game world reinforce the RPG aspect of the game? I think it would, as information would be made available to the player in a less "artificial" way.

Especially considering that HUD's cannot be integrated seemlessly into the game like this would be possible in a first person shooter (looking through a helmet with a HUD projected on it).

[Terror_K]

To be honest, I'd like the player to have choice and input as to what they want to appear and what they don't. For example, by pausing to bring up the tactical menu one could then tick whether they want the radar to appear all the time or only when pausing. That way players have the best of both worlds and those who prefer the radar gone for the most part can while those who would rather see it would also have that option.

I have to say that The Hammerhead sections were terrible when it came to a complete lack of info. Aside from preferring the vehicle just no longer exist and not be in ME3 at all, I'd at least like the vehicle sections to have a shield and damage indication as well as a radar/map. The way it was integrated into ME2 was beyond awful... it really was. A classic case of there just not being anywhere enough info at all. It really was a textbook case of exactly why I'm not a fan of the modern "minamalistic HUD" approach overal.

Modifié par Terror_K, 29 mars 2011 - 11:00 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

To be honest, I'd like the player to have choice and input as to what they want to appear and what they don't. For example, by pausing to bring up the tactical menu one could then tick whether they want the radar to appear all the time or only when pausing. That way players have the best of both worlds and those who prefer the radar gone for the most part can while those who would rather see it would also have that option.

I have to say that The Hammerhead sections were terrible when it came to a complete lack of info. Aside from preferring the vehicle just no longer exist and not be in ME3 at all, I'd at least like the vehicle sections to have a shield and damage indication as well as a radar/map. The way it was integrated into ME2 was beyond awful... it really was. A classic case of there just not being anywhere enough info at all. It really was a textbook case of exactly why I'm not a fan of the modern "minamalistic HUD" approach overal.

nice i theory, but if the radar did indeed cause a significant performance hit, then it should be forgotten - there are more important things than that to worry about.

agree totall re the hammerhead - i'd have preferred the mako, and i hated that for the most-part...

[Captain_Obvious_au]

I'm a bit confused about the radar issue actually. How is it that it's perfectly fine in ME1, yet it causes a big performance drop in ME2? Makes as much sense as a blue banana singing Elvis songs IMHO.

EDIT: it must be the end of the world soon - Jabel and Terror agree on something

Modifié par Captain_Obvious_au, 29 mars 2011 - 11:07 .

[SPARTAN-860]

You could have an ammo readout on the guns, but you'll probably have to keep the other stuff the way it is now.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

SPARTAN-860 wrote...

You could have an ammo readout on the guns

True, I actually quite liked that in Star Wars: Republic Commando.

[Drake_Hound]

That is not true the radar does not cause a significant performance hit , infact the radar made things easier , sometimes too easy , especially for snipers and tactical planning .
So I can understand why it is removed .
But again radar is not so important , look end deal is as gamers some people prefer a map beside a objective point . that is one of the reason ME2 for some people were a bit hard orientation wise .
Personally I do not have a problem without a map or active radar , but I can speak for gamers who would gave ME2 serie a bigger interest if those options were provided . especially the map display .

Hammerhead , honestly I agree 100% lack of the information and aside from removing tactical options of zoom sniping , lead to a boring fly in bash mouse button , fly back recharge shield game .It was definetly a not welcome experience , and I really enjoyed the mule .

[The BS Police]

Terror_K wrote...

To be honest, I'd like the player to have choice and input as to what they want to appear and what they don't. For example, by pausing to bring up the tactical menu one could then tick whether they want the radar to appear all the time or only when pausing. That way players have the best of both worlds and those who prefer the radar gone for the most part can while those who would rather see it would also have that option.

I have to say that The Hammerhead sections were terrible when it came to a complete lack of info. Aside from preferring the vehicle just no longer exist and not be in ME3 at all, I'd at least like the vehicle sections to have a shield and damage indication as well as a radar/map. The way it was integrated into ME2 was beyond awful... it really was. A classic case of there just not being anywhere enough info at all. It really was a textbook case of exactly why I'm not a fan of the modern "minamalistic HUD" approach overal.

Completly agree, less is more can be attributed to many things, but that saying just flat out does not work for me when it coems down to the HUD system in videogames.

[Terror_K]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

I'm a bit confused about the radar issue actually. How is it that it's perfectly fine in ME1, yet it causes a big performance drop in ME2? Makes as much sense as a blue banana singing Elvis songs IMHO.

I have to wonder at this too actually. Especially when it comes to the PC version. It's hard to imagine a circle with small red triangles in it that are totally 2D causing a massive performance drop. I'm not saying that it's a lie, it just seems... odd. Especially given how many prettier games are out there with far more going on HUD-wise. Granted ME1 was never as smooth as ME2, even on a good rig (the game itself is just simply a little jerkier), and had lots of loading pauses due to its larger areas. I also understand that what eats up a lot of memory are things like cinematics and conversations, which a lot of more action-oriented games don't have to deal with.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

I'm a bit confused about the radar issue actually. How is it that it's perfectly fine in ME1, yet it causes a big performance drop in ME2? Makes as much sense as a blue banana singing Elvis songs IMHO.

I have to wonder at this too actually. Especially when it comes to the PC version. It's hard to imagine a circle with small red triangles in it that are totally 2D causing a massive performance drop. I'm not saying that it's a lie, it just seems... odd. Especially given how many prettier games are out there with far more going on HUD-wise. Granted ME1 was never as smooth as ME2, even on a good rig (the game itself is just simply a little jerkier), and had lots of loading pauses due to its larger areas. I also understand that what eats up a lot of memory are things like cinematics and conversations, which a lot of more action-oriented games don't have to deal with.

i believe tracking all the enemy ai eats cpu cycles with everything else happening in combat at the same time. if it's the radar or better companion AI/whatever, i know which i want... it only has to be a few % of cycles to cause problems, even with careful optimisation.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 29 mars 2011 - 11:30 .

[Franzius]

Just bring back ME1 HUD please!!!

I still have to understand (power, shield, enemy etc..)the hud of ME2, really!!!
And please BiowEA makes the text READABLE in ME3

[Drake_Hound]

Franzius wrote...

Just bring back ME1 HUD please!!!

I still have to understand (power, shield, enemy etc..)the hud of ME2, really!!!
And please BiowEA makes the text READABLE in ME3

Ok best option for more enjoyment a bit like ME1 experience , is move space bar use/cover/climb over .
To the E key , and move radar toggle to Q key .
Leaves assign squad mate one and two ,  move to position , best suited for either space bar pausing like ME1 .
Or if you want to hot key it tab and left shift .
You almost have a ME1 experience that way .

[Frumyfrenzy]

SalsaDMA wrote...
I personally felt it was silly to claim immersion with such an inventory system, especially when I was carrying around several seemingly heavy or cumbersome weapons, yet only the one I was using was visible, the rest seemingly magically dissapearing. At least Shepards weapons (save the rushed smg) have fixed placements on the body where you can see they go to and from when selecting weapons.

DS interface was an aestethic choice, nothing more, nothing less.

An inventory for the eyes of the player only (Inventory ME1) is less immersive than an inventory for the eyes of the character (Dead Space 1 and 2). That's how I feel after playing both Dead Spaces, strongly even. My notion of immersion: As few things as possible on screen that are for the player only. You argue that inventories from games can't possible work in our world, therefore they work against immersion.Look relation at this in terms of immersion:

Inventory [wouldn't work in real life, for the eyes of the player only]  < Inventory [would work in real life, for the eyes of the player only] < Inventory [wouldn't work in real life, for the eyes of the character] < Inventory [would work in real life, for the eyes of the character]

This is how my immersion works, no contradiction there. You can substitute 'Inventory' with 'UI' or 'HuD'. 

[Powgow]

salsa, I dont like the way you argue. You write like you are the only one with intelligence on this board, neglecting all idea's from other people. Innovation is not a bad thing you know.

I think you mix up immersion, realism and the limiting factors of "a game". Suddenly appearing weapons (as in dead space) are a limit of that game, because the weapons are fairly large. An inventory system (with magical boxes) is necessary in any inventory based game, because you can not possibly implement it the way you use stuff in the real world. Using that as a counter-argument for an in-world interface is flawed.

In most games you have 3 layers. You as a player, manifest yourself in a game, but the HUD works as a third veil that gives information about the game but is not part of it. If you move it to the game world, you only have two layers. Making the game world more easy to get sucked into.

But this is my humble opinion, so, prove me wrong.

[SalsaDMA]

Powgow wrote...

salsa, I dont like the way you argue. You write like you are the only one with intelligence on this board, neglecting all idea's from other people. Innovation is not a bad thing you know.

Everyone don't have to be friends, that's how the world works. You don't like how I talk, I don't like american beer. Neither is cause for alarm, really.

Change is not necesarily innovation, though, which you are seeming to mix here. Change for the sake of change is not good. The age old "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" should spring to mind here.:innocent:

I think you mix up immersion, realism and the limiting factors of "a game". Suddenly appearing weapons (as in dead space) are a limit of that game, because the weapons are fairly large. An inventory system (with magical boxes) is necessary in any inventory based game, because you can not possibly implement it the way you use stuff in the real world. Using that as a counter-argument for an in-world interface is flawed.

It's a limit in DS because they didn't want to design with it. Weapons are carried in ME, without causing issues. In this aspect, ME is far far more immersive for me when I watch my character reach back and pull out his AR than if Isaac does a magic handwave and a big-arse ripper as wide as himself appears in his hands out of nowhere.
Even more funny, when you notice that the weapons in DS actually do folding animations too.

I don't discredit that an interface to navigate the inventory system needs to exist when you have an actual inventory in a game. I DO, however, find nothing immersive when the game blatantly breaks the 4th wall by letting my character use interfaces that doesn't exist in his world, but is a conveince mechanic set up for the player.

In most games you have 3 layers. You as a player, manifest yourself in a game, but the HUD works as a third veil that gives information about the game but is not part of it. If you move it to the game world, you only have two layers. Making the game world more easy to get sucked into.

But this is my humble opinion, so, prove me wrong.

The interface is the layer that gives you, the player, the info your character should have access to in the first place. By putting the interface in a form that makes your character look at data the player needs to know what the character knows already, you are in essence making the character look at data he in the first place wouldn't need, and also, depending on the circumstance, looking at data the character would never have access to in the first place.

And let me re-iterate, that putting visual indicators of an entire teams assets on the extrenal of every spec-op member in a strike team is just plain dumb. Even if we ignore that ideal extrerior appearance would be a supposed camoflage of whatever terrain/enviroments the team is undertaking its mission in, the fact that a glance at any of the troopers would give enemy forces just as much info about troop locations, amount of troops, ammo reserves, health of troops and what kind of arms they are carrying as the troopers themselves is just monumental in its attempt to keep disbelief at bay while claiming we are dealing with serious spec ops troops from a serious organization...

Edit: By all means, use the omin-tool to access journal and codex entries, as a nother poster suggested. But keep the effing combat relevant data AWAY from non-HuD displays.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 29 mars 2011 - 12:56 .

[Powgow]

I accept your argumentation, as they are valid points.

The combat issues are indeed a bit troublesome. To be honest, I think there could be a golden middle compromise between the two.types of HUD. But i just hope they move some of the stuff to the omni tool. The only time you us it is in cutscene and waving when you get some cash. Ah yes, and tech powers..

[II J0SePh X II]

Terror_K wrote...

I have to say that The Hammerhead sections were terrible when it came to a complete lack of info. Aside from preferring the vehicle just no longer exist and not be in ME3 at all, I'd at least like the vehicle sections to have a shield and damage indication as well as a radar/map. The way it was integrated into ME2 was beyond awful... it really was. A classic case of there just not being anywhere enough info at all. It really was a textbook case of exactly why I'm not a fan of the modern "minamalistic HUD" approach overal.

Could you not tell by the smoke, flames and alarm sirens, that the Hammerhead was about to blow? I mean it coldnt be more obvious! Why would you need more on screen HUD information above that?

It's also not 'minimalistic'. You get the exact same amount information when you need it, and no clutter when you don't. The aim is to have information available to both the player and to Shepard, giving the player more of a feeling that they are in the Mass Effect universe, and not sitting at home playing a video game.

I can understand that people have got used to, and become fans of HUDs - it's been part of the gaming furniture for as long as many can remember - but I feel most HUD elements in the past were only there because the game engines couldn't deliver realism. We've sort of become accustomed to having screens full of icons, numbers and meters. Today's game engines, and hardware are much more powerful, so the information that was once only available on screen can now be just as easily accessed through the actions of the protagonist - creating immersion. It's what a lot of gamers want Terror_K, surely you can understand that?

 

[Drake_Hound]

II J0SePh X II wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I have to say that The Hammerhead sections were terrible when it came to a complete lack of info. Aside from preferring the vehicle just no longer exist and not be in ME3 at all, I'd at least like the vehicle sections to have a shield and damage indication as well as a radar/map. The way it was integrated into ME2 was beyond awful... it really was. A classic case of there just not being anywhere enough info at all. It really was a textbook case of exactly why I'm not a fan of the modern "minamalistic HUD" approach overal.

Could you not tell by the smoke, flames and alarm sirens, that the Hammerhead was about to blow? I mean it coldnt be more obvious! Why would you need more on screen HUD information above that?

It's also not 'minimalistic'. You get the exact same amount information when you need it, and no clutter when you don't. The aim is to have information available to both the player and to Shepard, giving the player more of a feeling that they are in the Mass Effect universe, and not sitting at home playing a video game.

I can understand that people have got used to, and become fans of HUDs - it's been part of the gaming furniture for as long as many can remember - but I feel most HUD elements in the past were only there because the game engines couldn't deliver realism. We've sort of become accustomed to having screens full of icons, numbers and meters. Today's game engines, and hardware are much more powerful, so the information that was once only available on screen can now be just as easily accessed through the actions of the protagonist - creating immersion. It's what a lot of gamers want Terror_K, surely you can understand that?

 

I will be reasonable here , cause most people are putting effort into understanding eachother , What terror says holds a lot of truth for majority of the gamers ..Do not forget ME1 problems was that most systems were not uptodate to overcome a the problems of performence , Sure we got tons beter hardware and Halo reach is awesome graphic wise . but graphic wise doesn´t mean developers have to limit the game to certain % of the market .
The Hammerhead , was seriously lack of information , let say you drive a car , we take out the fuel gauge , the speed meter , cause you should know how fast by judging by the speed things moves , well you should know when your fuel runs out , infact you should know what the time is based on the sun .,now all are extreme examples . Just to explain people reasoning for immersion without HuD info .
You don´t need GPS cause everybody should be able to drive by roads , but tell that to the people who get lost in the deserts without maps/gps .
I don´t have any problems with seeing both side of the story , but in this case terror is 100% right about the hammerhead , I can stand scanning more cause it is boring and logical , then driving around in the hammerhead , jumping and shooting that really feel like a failed 3D arcade game , you wouldn´t even pay 1 euro into the machine to play it .
The Mule gave more freedom , in tactical option , and had the right amount of minimal interface .
The hammerhead did not , infact instead of being immersed , it was like lets get it over with as fast as possible >.<
So too little information also takes away a lot of fun , too much information sometimes overwhelm the players too .

[Raizo]

Just finished Arrival.

I don't remember using the Radar in ME1 all that much and ME2 certainly did not need a Radar since most of the levels were very linear and the badguys were all coming from the same direction but if ME3 is going to have similar levels to the ones I saw in Arrival then you you can put my name don for having the Radar come back in ME3. It certainly would have made certin section in Arrival less of a chore. I'd almost forgotten what it is like to be ouflanked in every direction in a ME game.

[javierabegazo]

Just wanted to say its amusing, seeing my thread referenced in a videogame journalism website
BioWare toying with Mass Effect 3 HUD News - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

[habitat 67]

javierabegazo wrote...

Just wanted to say its amusing, seeing my thread referenced in a videogame journalism website
BioWare toying with Mass Effect 3 HUD News - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

Oddly, I think I saw a thread which referenced this one at NeoGaf as well, and then a thread started here which referenced that one. Telephone game at it's finest.

[II J0SePh X II]

javierabegazo wrote...

Just wanted to say its amusing, seeing my thread referenced in a videogame journalism website
BioWare toying with Mass Effect 3 HUD News - Page 1 | Eurogamer.net

I thought the devs had got in touch with you to sound out the community, nice that Brenon contributed tho.

...and Drake, what are you talking about? Lol. That analogy of what I said was completely wide of the mark, and using real life examples is laughable. The reason I don't need a HUD in real life is because I CAN look at the speedo, fuel guage, watch etc. like you can in shift 2 unleashed to use a driving example. example

[truestatic]

No. :\\ This isn't Dead Space 2. If I go to sleep for a year and wake up and every third person shooter looks like DS2, I'll be a very sad panda. Furthermore, while it's certainly functional as a UI, it's NOT functional as an in game element. Why the hell would I walk around with a number telling me my HP on my back? Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it. What's more, you spend so much time using the cover system that this sort of thing would be almost constantly invisible when you need to see it most: WHILE YOU'RE IN COMBAT.

Leave Dead Space 2 to Deadspace 2. I know lots of people have a weird fetish for minimalist UI's, but no matter where you put it, you're going to have meters and numbers on screen. Having them moving around is less handy to me, and having them somewhere in game my character can't even see is even more ridiculous.