82 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
6-7 enemies for an entire RPG is just pathetic.  Heck,  even for a shooter it's pathetic.  Wolfenstein 3D had nearly as many enemies on a 386sx16,  and Doom eclisped that on a 486.

So it's a problem for you regardless of genre? OK, so why bring the genre up?

[Icinix]

Gatt9 wrote...
6-7 enemies for an entire RPG is just pathetic.  Heck,  even for a shooter it's pathetic.  Wolfenstein 3D had nearly as many enemies on a 386sx16,  and Doom eclisped that on a 486.

On that marvel of game design way back when a maths co processor was when you put a calculator next to your computer...
What ever happened to being able to save wherever you wanted, whenever you wanted?

[CajNatalie]

Ahglock wrote...

Another thing about the IGN article. He talked about the guns having more impact this time. And I wonder what he means, sound, feel, actual damage what? Because in ME2 guns disintegrated people and fast. Guns if anything had too much impact in ME2. Yeah it is a shooter/rpg but the guns obliterated enemies in a couple bursts/shots in insanity. If guns are even stronger, why use powers?

This is cause for concern... armor needs to do something for everyone... as much as I want Shep's armor to be able to actually ablate and protect you under fire again, I also believe enemies shouldn't be wearing custom-painted paper either.
Some kind of middle ground between ME1's walking tanks and ME2's paper armor... having even weaker armor would be an absolute annoyance. Particularly if you're still using the same guns as from ME2... so why should they suddenly be able to ignore armor?

I'm hoping the writer was oversensationalising as you would expect... or speaking in metaphors with the 'packing more punch' thing.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 03 juin 2011 - 11:02 .

[lazuli]

Gatt9 wrote...
Nearly every mission ends the same way.  Almost all of them involve the linear corridor walk as well.

So a game is only allowed a single corridor before it becomes repetitive to you?  What exactly are you looking for?  I can understand a desire for sprawling battlefields that can be a approached from multiple directions.  And, based on developer comments, it seems that we will be getting just that in ME3.

6-7 enemies for an entire RPG is just pathetic.  Heck,  even for a shooter it's pathetic.  Wolfenstein 3D had nearly as many enemies on a 386sx16,  and Doom eclisped that on a 486.

I profess ignorance on the finer details of model creation, but it seems to me that implementing a detailed enemy like, say, the Praetorian, would eclipse the implementation of Doom 2's Cyberdemon in terms of (relative) cost and (relative) size.

[AlanC9]

Icinix wrote...

On that marvel of game design way back when a maths co processor was when you put a calculator next to your computer...
What ever happened to being able to save wherever you wanted, whenever you wanted?

When did we actually have that?

[Gatt9]

lazuli wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Nearly every mission ends the same way.  Almost all of them involve the linear corridor walk as well.

So a game is only allowed a single corridor before it becomes repetitive to you?  What exactly are you looking for?  I can understand a desire for sprawling battlefields that can be a approached from multiple directions.  And, based on developer comments, it seems that we will be getting just that in ME3.

6-7 enemies for an entire RPG is just pathetic.  Heck,  even for a shooter it's pathetic.  Wolfenstein 3D had nearly as many enemies on a 386sx16,  and Doom eclisped that on a 486.

I profess ignorance on the finer details of model creation, but it seems to me that implementing a detailed enemy like, say, the Praetorian, would eclipse the implementation of Doom 2's Cyberdemon in terms of (relative) cost and (relative) size.

More open battlefields yield better options for tactics,  in contrast to ME2's corridors which basically leave you the choice of hiding behind the box on the left or the wall on the right.  Tactics from open battlefields yields more than just approach direction,  it lets you choose defensive or offensive strategies,  snipe or get close,  flank the enemy,  circle around the perimeter to the weak side,  draw them into a position where you have terrain advantages.

As far as the model creation goes...

In Doom 2,  the Cyberdemon had to be hand drawn,  and hand animated,  in every detail.  Today you draw a wireframe,  which is essentially a skeletal structure with a mesh to outline the body shape,  you can them animate the skeletal structure,  usually through dragging articulation points,  with the computer interpolating for you.  You can assign mass values,  which physics computations will handle for you.  Textures are then created and applied by another artist over the wireframe.

In terms of time,  2D animation is more time consuming,  you have to hand-animate every frame.  In terms of cost,  it'll probably be a wash,  though the more in depth you get the more it costs.  Meaning if you're blowing off limbs and having them crawl,  that'll take more time.  In terms of size,  modern graphics are larger.

Regardless,  6-7 enemies is unacceptable.  It doesn't take 2 years to make 6-7 enemies,  especially not with low resolution textures,  without damage mapping,  without physics.  Sure,  they had a ton of other models to do for the game,  but honestly,  it's the enemies you're going to be looking at for most of the game,  not the guy standing in the corner of a shop who doesn't even have interactive dialogue.

Icinix wrote...

On that marvel of game design way back when a maths co processor was when you put a calculator next to your computer...
What ever happened to being able to save wherever you wanted, whenever you wanted?

When did we actually have that?

Right up until Sony decided it wanted to replace the PC in the home in the late 90's with the PS2.  Prior to that point,  games were shared accross platforms,  and did very well.  Despite what "Common knowledge" claims today,  the "Bad genres" and "Outdated design" actually sold very well accross all platforms.

But Sony wanted Microsoft and Intel's market,  so they created an artificial digital divide.  They claimed that there was a difference between Console gamers and PC gamers,  and leveraging the PS2's installed base,  they forced exclusivity upon studios to make the divide appear real.  If you wanted your game on the PS2,  you weren't releasing it on the PC.  They went to great lengths in making their hardware as obtuse as possible to make porting so difficult as to be infeasible when the exclusivity expired.

The PS2 carried the old trope of Save Points that were still the mainstay of Japanese design.  There really wasn't any need for it any longer,  due to the advent of flash memory,  but it stuck around.  Since porting was already obtuse,  and the Myth was growing,  most companies just did as little as possible when porting,  which no longer happened very often.

This is also why Sony chose the Cell Processor,  not because it's better,  it actually can't hold a candle to an X86 processor because it's an in-order design,  they chose it because it makes porting difficult and they hoped it would continue exclusivity through obtuse.

Today,  there's an entire generation that grew up with Sony's Myth.  "Console gamers and PC gamers are different!".  No they're not,  it's a pooled market.  But you see it time and again,  "Console kiddies!"  "PC Elitists!",  it's the same bloody market.

So amongst the other problems Sony's gamble for the Home Computing market created,  Save Anywhere is another casualty,  Ports are half-baked,  because "Everyone knows PC Gamers don't play Console Games",  and ancient,  outdated,  unnecessary tropes from the SNES era propigate.

It's easy to see,  look at a PC oriented developer's games on the Consoles,  saving is pretty optional if not at will.  Look at a console developer's games and you get ancient tropes in save-points.  Equally,  look at the ports.  PC Dev's ports take advantage of both control systems,  Console Dev's ports are basically recompiling the code for the x86 platform,  reworking whatever fails compilation,  and putting the game on the PC "As is",  without taking advantage of anything.  Which then creates a self fullfilling prophecy,  because half-baked ports don't sell,  so "PC gamers must hate console games!",  no,  they hate unmanagable control schemes and horrible graphics.

And yes,  this is what actually happened.  Google up Sony's pre-PS2 PR and pre-PS3 PR,  they make no attempt to hide their intent to replace Home Computing,  and the way they intended to do it was by forcing exclusivity,  in order to force gamers to adopt,  then roll out applications,  in order to force migration.  Sony chooses the most difficult hardware for a reason,  and it isn't because it's better.

Yes,  that all was really necessary.  If I'd tried to explain why there's a difference in studios without explaining how it happened,  you'd tell me I'm nuts.  So instead I explained how there came to be a difference,  and why stuiods phone-in alot of ports.

[lazuli]

Gatt9 wrote...

More open battlefields yield better options for tactics,  in contrast to ME2's corridors which basically leave you the choice of hiding behind the box on the left or the wall on the right.  Tactics from open battlefields yields more than just approach direction,  it lets you choose defensive or offensive strategies,  snipe or get close,  flank the enemy,  circle around the perimeter to the weak side,  draw them into a position where you have terrain advantages.

ME2's levels are more than just corridors.  Granted many missions are quite linear.  All the same, you have a lot more freedom in each encounter than you're saying.  Just because you limit yourself to one strategy doesn't mean the game has to be played that way.  Different decisions in how you move around the battlefield, when you use powers, and even what squadmates you have with you can change up every encounter.

As far as the model creation goes...

In Doom 2,  the Cyberdemon had to be hand drawn,  and hand animated,  in every detail.  Today you draw a wireframe,  which is essentially a skeletal structure with a mesh to outline the body shape,  you can them animate the skeletal structure,  usually through dragging articulation points,  with the computer interpolating for you.  You can assign mass values,  which physics computations will handle for you.  Textures are then created and applied by another artist over the wireframe.

In terms of time,  2D animation is more time consuming,  you have to hand-animate every frame.  In terms of cost,  it'll probably be a wash,  though the more in depth you get the more it costs.  Meaning if you're blowing off limbs and having them crawl,  that'll take more time.  In terms of size,  modern graphics are larger.

Ok, but Doom didn't have enemies that could lose limbs and crawl around on the ground.  In fact, the enemies didn't have many sprites at all.

My point is that priorities have had to shift in games as technology becomes more advanced.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

ianmcdonald wrote...

I really cannot understand how anyone can be worried. If you decide that you don't want the game, you don't have to buy it. That's $60 that stays in your pocket.

If it turns out that you do want it, you can buy it and most likely enjoy the hell out of it.

Win-win.

Don't be silly.  I will buy Mass Effect 3.  That much is guaranteed.  Again, I must reiterate this point: Why has nobody paid attention to the adverb?  a bit... a.k.a. slightly, a little bit, not much