346 réponses à ce sujet

[Raanz]

I'm in the camp of not having a bazillion windows and widgets all over my field of view for the sake of displaying info that could be conveyed in a more eloquent way. Other games have proven that "health" and "shields" can be displayed without a big rectangle with red and blue bars. Ammo counts don't need to be displayed in big H1 fonts at the top of the screen.

I am sure there are many ways to display squad vitals rather then having a large portion of my screen real-estate taken up by a huge widget *cough* Dragon Age 2 (on Xbox) *cough*
mini-maps can easily be a toggle, don't need one constantly hanging up in the top right corner of my screen.

Yes, change for change sake is a mistake; innovation and changing for aesthetics in accordance with streamlined information dispersion is not only welcomed but expected.

[javierabegazo]

Raanz wrote...

I'm in the camp of not having a bazillion windows and widgets all over my field of view for the sake of displaying info that could be conveyed in a more eloquent way. Other games have proven that "health" and "shields" can be displayed without a big rectangle with red and blue bars. Ammo counts don't need to be displayed in big H1 fonts at the top of the screen.

I am sure there are many ways to display squad vitals rather then having a large portion of my screen real-estate taken up by a huge widget *cough* Dragon Age 2 (on Xbox) *cough*
mini-maps can easily be a toggle, don't need one constantly hanging up in the top right corner of my screen.
.

DA2 is an example of having a totally cluttered HUD with unnecessary info. Why do I need to know my character's level progress while I'm in battle? It should be in the Character screen where it belongs. Dated designs like that come from old cRPG's that hark back to a time of top down view, when graphical tech wasn't capable of games like ME1/ME2 or DS2.

[Sleepicub09]

I prefer this one

[sy7ar]

Real time radar, the only thing im asking to be returned. (especailly important for real time combat lilke in me2 but...)
other than that, i want me3 to surprise me, and i believe it will.
DS nice implementation, poor practicality
+1 for omnitool menu display

[Frumyfrenzy]

javierabegazo wrote...
DA2 is an example of having a totally cluttered HUD with unnecessary info. Why do I need to know my character's level progress while I'm in battle? It should be in the Character screen where it belongs. Dated designs like that come from old cRPG's that hark back to a time of top down view, when graphical tech wasn't capable of games like ME1/ME2 or DS2.

Even here, there is an in character solution. Your stats could increase by the simple fact Shep is fighting/hacking/talking and therefor trains his physical and mental abilities. The medical station on the Normandy could provide implants and enhancements to Shep, while you could experiment on weapons and armor in the armory/lab. Skills and abilities could be tied to an upgrade of your gear (omni tool, weapons, armor), obtained in missions or in several mutually exclusive research paths (eventually resulting in different classes). There is no need for a 'out-of-world' character screen. 

Modifié par Frumyfrenzy, 29 mars 2011 - 08:51 .

[Frumyfrenzy]

Sleepicub09 wrote...


I prefer this one

HuD visualized as a remote control. Odd choice. 

[Sleepicub09]

Frumyfrenzy wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...

*snip*
I prefer this one

HuD visualized as a remote control. Odd choice. 

its easy to understand and don't take up the screen; also it has a visible radar

[Terror_K]

II J0SePh X II wrote...

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?

Yeah. And then half a second later it had exploded. It would be nice to know how things were a little earlier than when I'm one shot away from death.

That said, half the issue was The Hammerhead's complete tissue-paper-esque hardiness, but that's another issue.

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.

Except that as a player I personally don't feel there's enough information at all. It was one of the first things I noticed and frustrated me about using The Hammerhead, before I even found out how flimsy, inadequate and gamey the vehicle was.

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?

Here's the thing though, I think going for a more Dead Space style approach is actually less immersive. The fact that the Mass Effect 2 design team are looking more into this is actually concerning to me and overall makes me think they really haven't learned. And if you're wondering "how?" and "why?" at this, let me explain.

Yes, a good HUD gets across the exact amount of info a player needs and doesn't go overboard. It also does so on a clear and concise way that should immediately be apparent to the player, or at the very least apparent after only a few minutes of play so they can see what each element means as it unfolds through playing. Can a HUD get in the way and ruin immersion though? I suppose it can to a degree, but I think and integrated HUD can be far worse if it isn't clear or doesn't provide enough information. A good HUD is there on-screen but a player should only really notice it when they need to. The ME1 did this by providing what I needed where and when I needed it, and I only glanced at it when I needed. It was laid out and presented in a way that meant I could just quickly glance at it and only really use it when I needed, and the rest of the time my focus was purely on the game. What takes me out of a game more is wanting the information when it's not there and having to continuiously pause the game or go to another screen to find it. This is how I've actually found a lot of minamalistic HUDs have completely failed, partiularly ones where a map or radar isn't present unless you go to a map screen or other separate place where all you get instead is a big holographic arrow somewhere vaguely pointing you where to go, or some big glowly column in the horizon, etc. Simply put, not enough info on screen can be just as immersion-breaking as too much.

Now, I'm a person who was actually taken out of the second game by things like the Mission Complete screens, loading screens, "Press F to return to Normandy" promps and giant pop-ups in ME2, but yet I defend a proper HUD rather than a Dead Space style integrated one. This may seem odd, but let me explain further: in the cases of these other things, they're things that pull you out of the game either by suddenly appearing and breaking the flow or getting in the way unnecessarily. The former two (loading and Mission Complete) are jarring and rip you out of the game, while the latter two ("Press F" and pop-ups) are actually a case of something that's unneccessary getting in the way (in the case of the latter, compare them to ME1 where it was just the bare minimum amount of info that popped up in a small box, as opposed to a giant image and some text, etc.). However, a good HUD doesn't do this to me because it's actually providing useful info and just the right amounts of it.

The thing is though, as much as these things can get in the way of an experience in a gameplay manner, the same thing can happen in a in-universe manner too, and IMO that's far worse. I already consider ME2 to have sacrificed good sense and practicality and even presentation and lore for gameplay design as it is and I'm worried that the same thing will be the case for ME3 now if the dev team do decide to go for a minimalistic HUD approach. It was like I was saying to Brenon about enemy silhouettes earlier, if they're going to make the enemies look really different for the sake of gameplay I'd like there to actually be a logical in-universe reasoning for it too. For example, in ME2 as it is I personally find the squad outfits and the thermal clips to be incredibly jarring. Sure, it's nice to have squaddies looking individual and unique, but in most cases their outfits aren't even remotely practical for space exploration. Similarly thermal clips may have improved gameplay, but there are so many lore and logical flaws with them it boggles the mind. The "rule of cool" seemed to be used far too often in ME2 and the integrity of the universe suffered for it, IMO.

On this basic theme, I found ME2 to also be somewhat over-hologrammed. Yeah, holograms are cool and all, and I love them in my sci-fi to bits, but the way they were done in ME2 sometimes just didn't seem sensible and made me question the integrity and realism of the universe, much like the squaddie outfits and thermal clips did. Also, like anything, they can cease to be cool when one goes overboard and they're everywhere. To sum up my issues with them, it just didn't make sense to me to have your weapons and even your characters covered in so many bright lights that really was basically advertising in a way. Aside from giving away your position instantly in any dark area which pretty much throws stealth and tactics out the window, anybody covered in holograms is basically advertising what they are, their defenses, capabilities and what ammo they're using to an enemy. I could tell from a mile away that a guy running around that glowed all over his/her upper torso would need an Overload for instance. It's more efficient than wearing a t-shirt that says "I'm here! Come on... kill me! And my weaknesses are as follows..."

On that note, I worry that this issue could get worse in ME3. Is Shepard going to be covered in even more "shoot-me" holograms that simply give information to the player now? What is the logical reason for Shepard having a shield and health indicator on his/her back in the real world? That's just silly considering the only ones who will see it are most likely his/her enemies. What's the point in him broadcasting his amount of "ammo" and the status of his squaddies to his enemies while fighting them. It's just silly, and that in itself to me is far more immersion-breaking than having a HUD that shows me the info I need. With a HUD the player knows that it's information only for them, but if you integrate it into the environment that's no longer the case.

[habitat 67]

Terror_K wrote...

II J0SePh X II wrote...

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?

Yeah. And then half a second later it had exploded. It would be nice to know how things were a little earlier than when I'm one shot away from death.

That said, half the issue was The Hammerhead's complete tissue-paper-esque hardiness, but that's another issue.

Yes, I believe the Hammerhead was an oragami speeder.
Thing is J0SePh, if you were projected as actually inside the vehicle you'd likely see a shield status. Not knowing anything about the power level of the Hammerhead made no sense.

[Overlord1944]

I just want to drop an Idea concerning the realism issues some participants in this discussion see in having numbers floating on the back of the character in an "immersive HUD" - how can numbers be realistic in any way to determine the health of an individual, especially when it's a simple 0 - 100 % "Life" gauge.

Therefore, you're technically right saying that an immersive HUD might not provide for more realism, as the gauges are simply the easiest way to integrate damage to a character into a game world, but an immersive HUD might make it feel less "artificial". An explanation could be: telling combat status to squadmates.

Anyway, this is not about realism, especially as this is a sci-fi game, so you might imagine the development of augmented reality HUDs mounted in the character's helmet, which will display status reports about squadmates whenever you look at them. The human in front of the screen could then be said wearing the same augmented reality device and "see through the eyes of his character", only above his/her shoulder.

I fear this is not clear, do you guys get what I mean?

[The Spamming Troll]

Sleepicub09 wrote...


I prefer this one

whats the point of having that information on screen tho? i dont need to know my health because large red veins  sliming across the screen do the job. same goes for my squad mates. if i dont see them in front of me, then they are prolly dead. i wouldnt mind more info like that showed when you open the power wheel tho. rechargine health means i dont need to see a health bar becasue it only takes a few secons to regen, so its wasted space and pointless.

ammo counts can be easily shown on weapons.

enemy health bars dont need to be shown either. bioware gave vangaurds barier and gae them a visual for when the enemy has barier up, so why add a floating health bar above them representing the same thing? engineers have tech armor too. what the ehck are health bars doing?

honestly, theres no point in having anything on screen in ME3, especially when they can utilize the powerwheel pause screen to show everything youd need to know. if ME is trying ot be more movie like, removing the HUD would make sense. they always show HUDless gameplay on footage too. its becasue it looks better and its easy to do.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 30 mars 2011 - 03:17 .

[Sleepicub09]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...

*snip*
I prefer this one

whats the point of having that information on screen tho? i dont need to know my health because large red veins  sliming across the screen do the job. same goes for my squad mates. if i dont see them in front of me, then they are prolly dead. i wouldnt mind more info like that showed when you open the power wheel tho. rechargine health means i dont need to see a health bar becasue it only takes a few secons to regen, so its wasted space and pointless.

ammo counts can be easily shown on weapons.

enemy health bars dont need to be shown either. bioware gave vangaurds barier and gae them a visual for when the enemy has barier up, so why add a floating health bar above them representing the same thing? engineers have tech armor too. what the ehck are health bars doing?

honestly, theres no point in having anything on screen in ME3, especially when they can utilize the powerwheel pause screen to show everything youd need to know. if ME is trying ot be more movie like, removing the HUD would make sense. they always show HUDless gameplay on footage too. its becasue it looks better and its easy to do.

1.those veins are most likely gonna be removed.
2.we don't know what their putting back into ME3; healing your squad my return.
3.health bars will always need to be in an rpg game, it's best to keep your squad alive.
4.it is already a cinematic experience, taking the hud won't help nor hurt that.

[Silver]

what I want back in ME3 is the little area map from ME1, I was a little bit pissed when it was removed in ME2.
Also, please do NOT take over any element of DS2's HUD.
I don't want my HUD to wobble around on my char's back, I want it static on my monitor, works best for me...

[Lunatic LK47]

Sleepicub09 wrote...


I prefer this one

Posting again. I would have liked it, but found looking at the bottom of my crosshair for ammo indicators distracting (Yes, that half circle below the crosshair is your ammo count).

[Overlord1944]

I don't think we'll be getting to a consensus here. Personally, I would really enjoy seeing an immersive HUD in ME3, reinforcing the cinematic gameplay experience of the Mass Effect Series. I don't care about whether I get the best combat experience, I don't care about fast play-throughs or about the most efficient combat tactic in a game like Mass Effect - if I want that, I play a first person shooter.

Stay focused on providing a cinematic experience and great storytelling like you did so well in the first two parts of ME Bioware.

In the meantime, maybe we should have a poll to see what's what. I think that a hybrid solution, keeping the ME2 Interface with a few tweaks on the one hand and having an optional immersive HUD replacing it on the other, would be best.

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

Well I'm not sure how you'd do health, but you could have shield projectors on Shepard have a soft blue glow to them while his shields are up, and they'd dim and eventually go out as he got shot.

[Uszi]

Brenon Holmes wrote...


Oh wow... but... I like my thumbs. Preston would totally take my thumbs... and I need them to type... otherwise there'd be no spaces in my posts...

Then your posts will be on the same level grammatically as the forum average.

Briefly scanning the thread, I see a lot of people asking for an ME1 style HUD back, to which I say, nay.

I greatly prefer ME2 > ME1, and it took me a while to figure out what all the little blue squares were around the names and what not.

Whereas ME2 I think is much more intuitive, and gives me the information I need to know when I need it.

I always support any additional improvements to clarity, but I think that the directrion of ME1 -> ME2 was a good one and I would like to see it continue.

I have some unimportant gripes, but my overall impressions are of improvement.

[Uszi]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Sleepicub09 wrote...


I prefer this one

Posting again. I would have liked it, but found looking at the bottom of my crosshair for ammo indicators distracting (Yes, that half circle below the crosshair is your ammo count).

I'm not sure I understand what's so great about that HUD.

About the only thing that it adds to the ME2 HUD that I would like to see is a better indication of squad condition.  Currently whenever they start taking hits, I just have to assume that they're too stupid to save themselves before they die and that once they take damage, I have about 5 seconds before they die off.

[Admoniter]

Sleepicub09 wrote...


I prefer this one

It has the faces that makes me sadface My only other changes would be reorientate the status bars horizontally. And tidying up the enemy Health display, IMO ME2 did a decent job of it the only thing I would change is allowing it to aptly display shield bypass /hint.

Modifié par Admoniter, 30 mars 2011 - 06:39 .

[Overlord1944]

How about not displaying an enemy's health at all in such a "gauge" manner, but instead display life signs like heart rate and brain activity besides them when you look at them and are in range of the sensors (talking about an "immersive HUD" again). That would add realism.

For geth, I am not so sure - maybe display measurements of an electronic "aura" as life sign? I think this would add a nice visual touch to combat. One could also think about weapon/armor upgrades to increase the range of the mentioned sensors (relevant for snipers i.e.).

What do you think?

[LGTX]

Sleepicub09 wrote...


I prefer this one

Agreed, I loved this design in the early screens. The current ME2 interface looks... uninspired, and lacks style and an ergonomic layout. ME1's might have been bulky, but it was well-organized and functional. I always thought that Bioware were wary of thinking a bit outside the box when designing their HUD interfaces, so I'm glad they're looking at Dead Space 2 for reference in that department.

[Frumyfrenzy]

But... but... the remote control in the lower left corner... .

[Jebel Krong]

whilst on the subject of hud, can we go back to ME1's circle cross-hairs, i hate the red one in ME2 it's far less elegant.

oh and that "remote" thing in those screens above is horrifying.

[LGTX]

Jebel Krong wrote...

whilst on the subject of hud, can we go back to ME1's circle cross-hairs, i hate the red one in ME2 it's far less elegant.

oh and that "remote" thing in those screens above is horrifying.

Mass Effect 1 was mainly an RPG with slacking shooter mechanics, so a circular crosshair didn't damage it's pacing much. But ME2 moved on to more tight shooter mechanics, hence the "mainstream" crosshair design, so in ME3 you can't go without a similar reticule if you want any precision while aiming. You don't ruin one of the central gameplay nuances just to make it more "elegant" imo. 

And I never associated the beta HUD with a remote control before people started saying so on the boards. 

[Jebel Krong]

@ terror-K: anything that unnecessarily takes you out of the game is immersion-breaking. i agree re end-mission screens etc. but the HUD design is part of that, if it can be integrated into the game more directly a la dead space or similarly, i'm all for it. i'm not saying the health/ammo should appear on every character - just on shepard would be enough and something like that blurs the line between in-universe realism and something there for gameplay aesthetic reasons.

Mass Effect 2 already takes some strides with enemy silhouetting - pack leader krogans for example have different armour as befits their status/lethality - it fits and it works, believably.