187 réponses à ce sujet

[lietk12]

DrIggy wrote...I had hoped they would ditch the minimalism for ME3, but from the E3 footage it seems I was wrong.

E3 demo was also using a ME2 placeholder UI, so there's still hope
http://social.biowar...75523/1#7575857

[Destroy Raiden_]

Ok instead of vines they’ve decided to go for a near blackout like you get when you’re getting waay to much blood drawn and you ate nothing type of closing in black so all badguys will now be totally invisible to your peripheral vision.

The arrows were ok but I’d like to see how they’re done before I say I love or hate them at least shep won’t be going over when I wanted him to go around something.

I agree with the whole no to flashy shinny objects or boxes around an important object like we got in ME2. I want to search and find mystuff not have flags and neon signs screaming look right here!

For music tuning up in battle I agree if it’s not the chest high walls, the pre battle saves giving it away, it’s the turn up the music que. All the listed tells me I need to get my gun out now.

ME2 took away the holster ability PUT IT BACK BW. I don’t need my gun drawn for me 24/7 like my fussy mom is making sure everything is safe. I want to holster and draw my gun at will when not in combat. I didn’t mind how in ME shep would only draw the gun if he/she saw an enemy other then that it was in the holster on his/her back or hip and I could choose to draw it in public or not.

Take out the R3 compass guide like I hit that and an arrow briefly lights up in the corner of my screen and says go this way. I don’t like it.

Modifié par Destroy Raiden , 09 juin 2011 - 12:51 .

[Hathur]

Clonedzero wrote...

Hathur wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I will point out that for every message I have ever been sent saying "theer are too many tutorials" or pop ups or whatever, I have a lot more asking for help as they do not understand how things work.

Sure, smart people like YOU dear reader of this may not need them, but you'd be surprised how many people do.

Just one important question... can those stupid arrows be turned off in game options screen? Cus dagnabbit that is really immersion breaking.

can those stupid cross hairs that i use to aim be turned off in the game options screen? cus dagnabbit that is really immersion breaking.

can those stupid health, ammo and cooldown indicators be turned off in the game options screen? cus dagnabbit that is really immersion breaking.


and yes. its the same thing.

I'll be civilized and ignore your snide attitude... and instead point out.

a) Crosshairs are a necessary thing, since you can't aim and hope to hit anything without them... so for the sake of function in the game, they are a necessary evil.

Health meters are .. debateable.. there are several games that don't even show them at all, instead relying on visual character cues to give the player an estimation how badly they are hurt... once again though, it's somethign that can be tolerated (especially since the health bar is moved out of the way and doesn't intrude on what's going on in the center screen).

c) the arrows in ME3 serve only to assist people new to video games who either don't follow tutorials or don't spend a few minutes experimenting with a game's controls. For the overwhelming majority of gamers, it's a pointless intrusive icon that eats up a sizeable part of the screen in a very distracting manner.

How inept or new to gaming does one need to be to know that you can move out of cover to the right or left? You'd learn this within a minute or two of playing around with the game. In ME2, the first 10 seconds of gameplay I learned how to vault over a wall.. the game showed me once with a tutorial message, done.. don't need to be reminded constantly with an irritating arrow indicating it for the rest of the game.

I'm going to assume the arrows can be turned off.. it make sense... but I would be rather annoyed if they can't.

Modifié par Hathur, 09 juin 2011 - 01:00 .

[Vertigo_1]

AwesomeEffect2 wrote...

I'll give another vote for a toggle option.

I would like this as well for ME3.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

I actually found the arrows too big, contrasting with the environment, so, distracting. It just screams "HUD". In Gears of War for example, the color doesn't contrast with the environment, so it's not so much intrusive. They should make the color combine with the environment or completely reflexive. *Damn, my english is being put to a test.

[blind black]

toggle option should be enough to shut people up. i don't need the arrows but i will be keeping it on, but if other people do not want visual cues then i say let them have it (or not have it).

Modifié par blind black, 09 juin 2011 - 01:07 .

[MastaPasta]

hangmans tree wrote...

 Did IQ dropped beyond the atlantic ocean?

OH THE IRONY OF GRAMMAR

[Clonedzero]

it honestly seems most people who are against it dont understand its function. but ah well.

[Xeranx]

Hathur wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

Hathur wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

I will point out that for every message I have ever been sent saying "theer are too many tutorials" or pop ups or whatever, I have a lot more asking for help as they do not understand how things work.

Sure, smart people like YOU dear reader of this may not need them, but you'd be surprised how many people do.

Just one important question... can those stupid arrows be turned off in game options screen? Cus dagnabbit that is really immersion breaking.

can those stupid cross hairs that i use to aim be turned off in the game options screen? cus dagnabbit that is really immersion breaking.

can those stupid health, ammo and cooldown indicators be turned off in the game options screen? cus dagnabbit that is really immersion breaking.


and yes. its the same thing.

I'll be civilized and ignore your snide attitude... and instead point out.

a) Crosshairs are a necessary thing, since you can't aim and hope to hit anything without them... so for the sake of function in the game, they are a necessary evil.

Health meters are .. debateable.. there are several games that don't even show them at all, instead relying on visual character cues to give the player an estimation how badly they are hurt... once again though, it's somethign that can be tolerated (especially since the health bar is moved out of the way and doesn't intrude on what's going on in the center screen).

c) the arrows in ME3 serve only to assist people new to video games who either don't follow tutorials or don't spend a few minutes experimenting with a game's controls. For the overwhelming majority of gamers, it's a pointless intrusive icon that eats up a sizeable part of the screen in a very distracting manner.

How inept or new to gaming does one need to be to know that you can move out of cover to the right or left? You'd learn this within a minute or two of playing around with the game. In ME2, the first 10 seconds of gameplay I learned how to vault over a wall.. the game showed me once with a tutorial message, done.. don't need to be reminded constantly with an irritating arrow indicating it for the rest of the game.

I'm going to assume the arrows can be turned off.. it make sense... but I would be rather annoyed if they can't.

Thank you for pointing that out.  ME2 despite the hand-holding bits never constantly told you that "to vault over this piece of cover, press up + spacebar or whatever is equivalent for your respective console.  It's unnecessary past a tutorial point, but people don't want to be reminded of stuff that usually becomes second nature.  This kind of hand-holding would be equivalent in fighting games telling you at various times what buttons and motions with the directional pad or joystick to make to perform attacks or maneuvers.  It's understodd that you'll get them in time so why is it considered a vital bit of info throughout a game.  Give us a toggle so we don't have to deal with it all the time.  

Most of your customers have spent time in arcades and had consoles at home long before they were able to drive.  The average adult gamer, I'm assuming, is anywhere from 40 and down.  I'm 30, so the average 30-year-old came across Atari, Sega Genesis, Nintendo console, Super Nintendo, Nintendo 64, Game Cube, Playstation - PS3, Xbox, Lynx, Gamegear, Gameboy, Neo Geo, Turbo Graphics 16 (probably not spelled that way), etc.  Nevermind that those before us and including us had arcades and such to go to.  Suffice it to say that we're not newbies to the gaming arena.  We've learned complex codes to perform various attacks and finishing moves in games like Mortal Kombat, Killer Instinct, Virtua Fighter, Street Fighter and the list goes on.  

An error I made, there are kids who learn the same complex codes to manipulate combat in the games I mentioned above and they learned them the say way we did.  Meaning we don't need constant reminders.  Sorry for the slight to all the younger gamers.

Sometimes what's discussed at GDC events needs to be met with a question of "do we really need to do that"?  Seeing as the metrics being used were a result of the last one or the one before.  

Please give us a toggle.

[ink07]

To the OP:

I call it the "no gamer left behind" initiative. It is happening everywhere, and it is sad. To some old-school people like me there was nothing better than being thrown in a world and having to figure out stuff for yourself. I don't mean cryptic stuff like in Simon's Quest where you have to equip a certain item and crouch in a specific point of the map for God knows how many seconds until a twister appears to take you away. I mean stuff like how to combine certain game mechanics/ powers/items, (like how to beat Megaman's bosses) or usually figuring out stuff only hinted through the lore or in the in game text that appear through are exploration and experimantation.

We live in an era though where people have returned their games to the store because they are "broken" when after a number of minutes the game hasn't explicitly told them "play me by using that thing that comes with your console called controller". You may laugh or think this is hyperbole, but it is true, there is even a rule within the Microsoft certification process that explicitly says so.

People can't figure out the simplest stuff. Remember that reviewer that didn't know you could level up in Mass Effect 1 so he played it like for 5 hours and got frustrated that Shepard didn't evolve or gained new powers, then proceedded to bash it in his review? Recently people have been complaining a lot that The Witcher 2 is overtly complicated because the devs decided to relegate the tutorial to the manual and tooltips. They say it like if opening your journal to understand what you have to do was a flaw.

Too bad that big studios have to develop for the lowest common denominator nowadays, so people are held by the hand and told how they should enjoy their games. I don't know how we ever figured out how to find secret stuff in Mario before the internet, or how we ever finished Contra. We must have been some kind of super kids back then.

Modifié par ink07, 09 juin 2011 - 01:58 .

[In Exile]

ink07 wrote...
I call it the "no gamer left behind" initiative. It is happening everywhere, and it is sad. To some old-school people like me there was nothing better than being thrown in a world and having to figure out stuff for yourself. I don't mean cryptic stuff like in Simon's Quest where you have to equip a certain item and crouch in a specific point of the map for God knows how many seconds until a twister appears to take you away.

That's a shame, because ME3 is going to randomize inputs every 5 minutes, and then only in combat when Shepard has <50% health.

I mean stuff like how to combine certain game mechanics/ powers/items, (like how to beat Megaman's bosses) or usually figuring out stuff only hinted through the lore or in the in game text that appear through are exploration and experimantation.

The problem with that is that the extent to which this is 'fun' and not an example of the Simon Quests is totally subjective.

You might think that figuring out stuff that's only hinted at during lore is awesome. Another player is going to think: unless this is totally perihperal to the game, why couldn't it be implemented better? If I need to combine biotics + tech to take down the Geth Colossus, why wouldn't someone in-game figure it out?

It all comes right back to preference.

We live in an era though where people have returned their games to the store because they are "broken" when after a number of minutes the game hasn't explicitly told them "play me by using that thing that comes with your console called controller". You may laugh or think this is hyperbole, but it is true, there is even a rule within the Microsoft certification process that explicitly says so.

Part of that is liability.

People can't figure out the simplest stuff. Remember that reviewer that didn't know you could level up in Mass Effect 1 so he played it like for 5 hours and got frustrated that Shepard didn't evolve or gained new powers, then proceedded to bash it in his review? Recently people have been complaining a lot that The Witcher 2 is overtly complicated because the devs decided to relegate the tutorial to the manual and tooltips. They say it like if opening your journal to understand what you have to do was a flaw.

Witcher 2 is too complicated because they never explain how to use your powers. Reading what they do != actually being able to use them. But TW2 is poorly designed not becuase of how they present their toturial, but because the prologue is to hard relative to the skill of a beginner.

If you design a massively complicated combat system, you have to give the player an acclimation point. While repeated failure may be a source of enjoyment for you, it's a subjective design virtue.

Too bad that big studios have to develop for the lowest common denominator nowadays, so people are held by the hand and told how they should enjoy their games. I don't know how we ever figured out how to find secret stuff in Mario before the internet, or how we ever finished Contra. We must have been some kind of super kids back then.

Any arcade (or arcade era) game was made intentionally difficult to swallow quarters. Persevereance to a stubborn absolute isn't any more of a virtue that an "i win" button.

Modifié par In Exile, 09 juin 2011 - 02:49 .

[In Exile]

Hathur wrote..
How inept or new to gaming does one need to be to know that you can move out of cover to the right or left? You'd learn this within a minute or two of playing around with the game. In ME2, the first 10 seconds of gameplay I learned how to vault over a wall.. the game showed me once with a tutorial message, done.. don't need to be reminded constantly with an irritating arrow indicating it for the rest of the game.

I'm going to assume the arrows can be turned off.. it make sense... but I would be rather annoyed if they can't.

It has nothing to do with that. It has everything do to with how you move, if you have a multiple of options implemented (e.g. you can have a jump out + shoot, or a roll to the next cover). Which option you want the character to execute has to be clear to the player, otherwise you have "WTF? I want him to jump out and shoot, why the hell is he going to the next cover to get murdered?"

[marshalleck]

In Exile wrote...

Hathur wrote..
How inept or new to gaming does one need to be to know that you can move out of cover to the right or left? You'd learn this within a minute or two of playing around with the game. In ME2, the first 10 seconds of gameplay I learned how to vault over a wall.. the game showed me once with a tutorial message, done.. don't need to be reminded constantly with an irritating arrow indicating it for the rest of the game.

I'm going to assume the arrows can be turned off.. it make sense... but I would be rather annoyed if they can't.

It has nothing to do with that. It has everything do to with how you move, if you have a multiple of options implemented (e.g. you can have a jump out + shoot, or a roll to the next cover). Which option you want the character to execute has to be clear to the player, otherwise you have "WTF? I want him to jump out and shoot, why the hell is he going to the next cover to get murdered?"

Seriously. Did Hathur never play Gears of War? Talk about new to gaming. Pfft. Context-sensitive actions, bro.

Modifié par marshalleck, 09 juin 2011 - 02:53 .

[crimzontearz]

www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/2921-Tutorials-101 

bioware please watch that.......

[In Exile]

marshalleck wrote..

Seriously. Did Hathur never play Gears of War? Talk about new to gaming. Pfft. Context-sensitive actions, bro.

Yes, clearly I am referencing Gears of War, instead of pointing out that the design philosphy isn't about assuming the users are stupid.

[ink07]

In Exile wrote...
The problem with that is that the extent to which this is 'fun' and not an example of the Simon Quests is totally subjective. You might think that figuring out stuff that's only hinted at during lore is awesome. Another player is going to think: unless this is totally perihperal to the game, why couldn't it be implemented better? If I need to combine biotics + tech to take down the Geth Colossus, why wouldn't someone in-game figure it out?

Implementation is exactly my point, hence the SQ example. I think that the genre warrants a little bit of delving into the story, journal and codex. This is an RPG and certain things are expected, of course I am not implying that Call of Duty should have a 300 page backstory and sidequests and secret items and be better for it. I am talking about a game treating you like you have a brain and can figure out things without surrounding them in big red text.

Part of that is liability

Obviously. It exists because people are just that dumb, hence why things are developed with the lowest common denominator in mind.

Witcher 2 is too complicated because they never explain how to use your powers. Reading what they do != actually being able to use them. But TW2 is poorly designed not becuase of how they present their toturial, but because the prologue is to hard relative to the skill of a beginner. If you design a massively complicated combat system, you have to give the player an acclimation point. While repeated failure may be a source of enjoyment for you, it's a subjective design virtue.

Look, I really don't want to turn this into a TW2 discussion, but it really isn't a hard game at all. It simply (by design) favours exposition over explaining everything with red text and shiny lights. And I will grant you that it is obscure at first and hides many of its mechanics but it requires you to approach it with a prior knowledge of the genre and assumes you want a challenge, not fancy setpieces linked by cutscenes.
You have 2 weapons, 1 fast attack, 1 heavy attack, 6 magic signs (with a tooltip that explains exactly what each is for) and traps/bombs. Even a game like Zelda has more depth than that and if you give up after two or three battles when you can't figure out this for yourself without the game spelling it out you shouldnt be playing games at all. You can't figure out how to use a radial menu or when to block, roll out of danger? That is my point, a game of a certain genre with a 2 is expecting you to know stuff beforehand, and especially games with a certain audience in mind. Of course it can be argued that it is not good design for many games and that is exaclty the problem, not every game has to be the staple of accesibility for everyone, not every game is designed for a 10 year old that only just bought a console.

Any arcade (or arcade era) game was made intentionally difficult to swallow quarters. Persevereance to a stubborn absolute isn't any more of a virtue that an "i win" button

Well, I'm not talking about arcade games at all. It is not that games should expect stubbonr perseverance, it is that they should present you with a challenge and reward you accordingly. Nowadays studios are worried that you wont see every asset and see every texture they spend millions on, so they make sure everyone is capable of, and take you there by the hand while at the same time treating you like this is your first videogame ever.

Modifié par ink07, 09 juin 2011 - 03:31 .

[Hathur]

marshalleck wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Hathur wrote..
How inept or new to gaming does one need to be to know that you can move out of cover to the right or left? You'd learn this within a minute or two of playing around with the game. In ME2, the first 10 seconds of gameplay I learned how to vault over a wall.. the game showed me once with a tutorial message, done.. don't need to be reminded constantly with an irritating arrow indicating it for the rest of the game.

I'm going to assume the arrows can be turned off.. it make sense... but I would be rather annoyed if they can't.

It has nothing to do with that. It has everything do to with how you move, if you have a multiple of options implemented (e.g. you can have a jump out + shoot, or a roll to the next cover). Which option you want the character to execute has to be clear to the player, otherwise you have "WTF? I want him to jump out and shoot, why the hell is he going to the next cover to get murdered?"

Seriously. Did Hathur never play Gears of War? Talk about new to gaming. Pfft. Context-sensitive actions, bro.

I've been gaming for 27+ years. On PC . The last console I owned personally was a NES back in the early/mid 80's.

Modifié par Hathur, 09 juin 2011 - 03:50 .

[marshalleck]

In Exile wrote...

marshalleck wrote..

Seriously. Did Hathur never play Gears of War? Talk about new to gaming. Pfft. Context-sensitive actions, bro.

Yes, clearly I am referencing Gears of War, instead of pointing out that the design philosphy isn't about assuming the users are stupid.

I knew exactly what you meant, and provided one of the primary examples of this design in practice. For all of Hathur's bluster about ineptitude and noobishness, I thought it amusing that they apparently missed out on the obvious mechanics at work and confused them for dumbed down perma-tutorial.

Modifié par marshalleck, 09 juin 2011 - 03:51 .

[Terror_K]

I have to agree with the OP. ME2 felt like it was almost a constant tutorial. The way it babied me and filled the screen with giant pop-ups and info screens reminiscent of a children's book. It was downright insulting, quite frankly. I'd rather not see ME3 putting me in a high chair and spoon-feeding me everything too. It was bad enough the gameplay was dumbed-down for the common gamer, but did they really have to do the same with the overall presentation?

That said, I'm not terribly worried about ME3 from what I've seen. I haven't seen giant pop-ups or "Mission Complete" screens yet, and the weapon modding and stats screens remind me more of ME1's systems (which is a good thing). The in-combat arrows don't bother me too much, because you do need some indication as to what you are doing, especially with the improved cover systems, otherwise how will you know if you're rolling into another piece of cover or simply rolling out into the open, or even forward, etc.?

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 juin 2011 - 03:57 .

[FluffyScarf]

Typical comment. It's why RPG fanatics are negatively stereotyped.

[marshalleck]

Hathur wrote...

I've been gaming for 27+ years. On PC . The last console I owned personally was a NES back in the early/mid 80's.

That would explain your hilariously inappropriate interpretation of what the context-sensitive action icons in the gameplay field represent. You're totally out of touch with modern gaming trends! 

Modifié par marshalleck, 09 juin 2011 - 04:00 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

I wish they would return to the ME1 style health meters for Shepard squad mates.

[DadeLeviathan]

I would assume they will have a toggle that lets you toggle the hints and arrows and such off. But to expect them to take it out simply because you don't need it is sheer arrogance. That's tantamount to saying that since you don't like ice in your soda, nobody can have ice in their soda.