378 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

 let me just say to put it as vaguely and indirectly as possible, that the BioWare forums aren't quite the same as they used to be. Compared to, say, the old forums.

Yes, but you draw conclusion as assumption that now in the forum there is new people who aren't like you.

I think in some way you are right, but also there is other possibility to think here too. People who have been support what Bioware has done, has allways been here.  So, when Bioware started to make different kind of "RPG" games, some accepted it and some did not like it. But it was not that they where new people in this forum, but because they did not all think same ways about RPG it self. You self have notice how split we are in this forum related RPG. Maybe it has allways exist in this forum, but without anything bring it to surface no-one has notice it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2011 - 02:04 .

[Mister Mida]

Ok, this thread pretty much ended up as ME (1) vs. ME2: round n + 1.

Trying to get it back on track, they had to show all the action stuff because it would be pretty boring during the press conferences to listen to some guys talking them to death. E3 press conferences tend to be that way. They didn't show (much) much non-combat gameplay of The Witcher 2 on the floors there as well AFAIK, even though it has a lot of it.

Nope, my impressions for ME3 are not based on the stuff they showed then. My impressions for that come out of what ME2 ended up to be and what Bioware has said they'd do for ME3.

[SalsaDMA]

Someone With Mass wrote...

No exploration in ME2? Then what do you call the side missions with the crashed ships or the Prothean beacons?

Or is exploration = driving aimlessly on the same generic deserted planet in the Mako for fifteen minutes to find stuff marked out on the map that you don't really need beyond the XP you get for finding them?

Exploration = The action of traveling in or through an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it.

So ME2 had quite a lot of exploration once you think about it.

lol.

No.

There was no exploration in ME2. It was just a bunch of missions.

I like how you took your negative opinion of the mako, or the fact that ME1 tried a more realistic approach to depicting other worlds and spun it into being an universal negative aspect just because.

ME1 had more seamlessly integrated maps than ME2. Even if you focus solely on the hubs, and ignore the mako planetside landings for a minute (of which there were nothing to compare with in ME2), there was more exploration in ME1 hubs than in ME2 hubs, partly because of the seamless integrations. First time entering the citadel I felt like I was exploring the place. First time I was on Omega, I felt I was just on a random map to do missions.

It's a collective effort of map layout, techniques and overall work gone into what the map is supposed to be about that emates the feel you get from it. If you really feel that you got the same vibe of exploration from ME2 that you got from ME1, then your mind works in a totally different way than mine.

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Yes it does. 

Exploration is also about discovery. Take for example the abandoned mine in ME2 we know little about, but we're getting unusual readings from the planet.

So then we'll go down there, and we'll explore the site in order to find out what happened.

Exploration is about discovery, yes. Discovery is not going down and being put on a track that just takes you there automatically. Exploration in ME2 N7 missions is like exploring a hallway with no doors except the one at the end which has the one thing you're looking for in it.

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...

Exploration is about discovery, yes. Discovery is not going down and being put on a track that just takes you there automatically. Exploration in ME2 N7 missions is like exploring a hallway with no doors except the one at the end which has the one thing you're looking for in it.

ME1 wasn't that different from the same deal once you were done driving around with the Mako and went to the building that's marked on you map.

As many other people said, all ME2 did was cutting out the driving, because we have a shuttle now.

[littlezack]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Yes it does. 

Exploration is also about discovery. Take for example the abandoned mine in ME2 we know little about, but we're getting unusual readings from the planet.

So then we'll go down there, and we'll explore the site in order to find out what happened.

Exploration is about discovery, yes. Discovery is not going down and being put on a track that just takes you there automatically. Exploration in ME2 N7 missions is like exploring a hallway with no doors except the one at the end which has the one thing you're looking for in it.

Like I keep saying, there was a track in ME1, too. It was just invisible. Going off the beaten path will just net you some extra minerals, if you find anything at all. The planets in ME1 aren't some amazing sandboxes with tons of interesting things to explore...they're big, barren landscapes with one thing you need to drive to and a bunch of really minimal and poiintless things that you might stumble on. And it was especially grating when you couldn't tell them apart. Driving up a mountain to find a dogtag is not my idea of fun.

[Rockworm503]

Undertone wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

No exploration in ME2? Then what do you call the side missions with the crashed ships or the Prothean beacons?

Or is exploration = driving aimlessly on the same generic deserted planet in the Mako for fifteen minutes to find stuff marked out on the map that you don't really need beyond the XP you get for finding them?

Exploration = The action of traveling in or through an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it.

So ME2 had quite of exploration once you think about it.

I don't think you and I have the same concept of exploration in mind. I don't cound loading another generic level and walking through it for few mins as exploration.

Yet you find loading another generic planet is....

[Terror_K]

littlezack wrote...

Like I keep saying, there was a track in ME1, too. It was just invisible. Going off the beaten path will just net you some extra minerals, if you find anything at all. The planets in ME1 aren't some amazing sandboxes with tons of interesting things to explore...they're big, barren landscapes with one thing you need to drive to and a bunch of really minimal and poiintless things that you might stumble on. And it was especially grating when you couldn't tell them apart. Driving up a mountain to find a dogtag is not my idea of fun.

It would entirely defeat the purpose of them being Uncharted Worlds if they had interesting, dynamic stuff everywhere. One of ME2's biggest failings was that nowhere felt real: it was all too overly designed, small, fake and overpopulated. It never felt vast and empty like the dead worlds in the void of unending space should. Their barren, vast and plain nature was part of their charm: a charm ME2 completely lacked.

Modifié par Terror_K, 28 juin 2011 - 02:17 .

[Someone With Mass]

SalsaDMA wrote...
It's a collective effort of map layout, techniques and overall work gone into what the map is supposed to be about that emates the feel you get from it. If you really feel that you got the same vibe of exploration from ME2 that you got from ME1, then your mind works in a totally different way than mine.

I didn't feel like I was wasting my time wandering around, looking for a door in ME2, which happened a lot in ME1.

And walking around the Citadel wasn't much exploring after I did it a few times and knew where everything was that's actually important, like the shops, the clubs and all that. Then it just became an annoying labyrinth. In ME2, I could just go directly to the stores instead of messing around with the elevators and the hallways that were obviously there to just give me a false sense of a grand scale.

[SalsaDMA]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Exploration is about discovery, yes. Discovery is not going down and being put on a track that just takes you there automatically. Exploration in ME2 N7 missions is like exploring a hallway with no doors except the one at the end which has the one thing you're looking for in it.

ME1 wasn't that different from the same deal once you were done driving around with the Mako and went to the building that's marked on you map.

As many other people said, all ME2 did was cutting out the driving, because we have a shuttle now.

I can imagine the mission where you check out monkeys done ME2 way then, by your anology: A hallway and a room at the end with a single monkey to interact with.

After all, we cut out the open air where people can drive between monkey spots to check out the monkeys, and only left in the one in the mine that was important. Need to cut out the 'boring' middle part stuff as it's not needed to be done, right?

And before you make any witty retorts on the location of the important monkey being the same every time, let me remind you that you don't know this the first time you play the game. Nor that you can just skip the monkeyspots on the overland map. The difference in experience for a first time player would be vast.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...


It would entirely defeat the purpose of them being Uncharted Worlds if they had interesting, dynamic stuff everywhere. 

Then don't include them. My first time I explored an uncharted world, I was impressed. By the third time. I was bored by how generic everything felt. Exploration is not exploration if there is nothing to explore. 

[marshalleck]

Terror_K wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Like I keep saying, there was a track in ME1, too. It was just invisible. Going off the beaten path will just net you some extra minerals, if you find anything at all. The planets in ME1 aren't some amazing sandboxes with tons of interesting things to explore...they're big, barren landscapes with one thing you need to drive to and a bunch of really minimal and poiintless things that you might stumble on. And it was especially grating when you couldn't tell them apart. Driving up a mountain to find a dogtag is not my idea of fun.

It would entirely defeat the purpose of them being Uncharted Worlds if they had interesting, dynamic stuff everywhere. One of ME2's biggest failings was that nowhere felt real: it was all too overly designed, small, fake and overpopulated. It never felt vast and empty like the dead worlds in the void of unending space should.

Exactly. Each N7 mission looked and felt like a Hollywood action movie set, not a possibly real location. There are a lot more planets out there with surfaces like that of our moon, Mars, or Venus than there are those like Earth with a rich terrestrial biome. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 juin 2011 - 02:21 .

[Veex]

Terror_K wrote...

Streamling is a very good concept. The problem is that most of the time when a game developer says "streamlining" they actually mean "dumbing down" in most cases. Just because one uses the term, doesn't mean one is truly adhering to it. And, like anything, one can go too far.

Streamlining is supposed to be the process of taking what exists and making it simpler, more accessible and easier to use while retaining as much of its functionality and depth as possible. Culling and neutering systems is not streamlining; it's oversimplification and dumbing down.

Removing tedium is not dumbing down. If an inventory system slows down your gameplay and adversely affects the experience culling and neutering it IS streamlining. This is how BioWare felt, otherwise they wouldn't have changed it. Mass Effect's inventory system is no more complex than Mass Effect 2's, one is simply more time consuming. As a developer BioWare can attempt to reach a compromise between the two systems, but neither is complex. Dumbing down is probably the most misused term in gaming.

Terror_K wrote...
The fact is, the gaming industry as a whole isn't actually trying to streamline their games and retain their depth at all: they're trying to appeal to as big an audience as possible and lower the bar to appeal to as many as possible. The entertainment industry as a whole is doing it in fact. Everything is becoming this samey brown mush these days because it's no longer about entertaining and appealing to different people with different things, but about making money and appealing to as many people as possible with the same thing.

I'm just not convinced this is the truth. BioWare wouldn't have included ANY type of inventory system in DA2 if that were the case, correct? How is that by catering to the masses Dragon Age 2 "dumbed down" their inventory system to be more robust than ME2? You can argue that it is more streamlined than Dragon Age, but for me to believe your premise is true they'd have had to undergo a similar "culling and neutering" of RPG systems to appeal to the masses.

Dragon Age 2 retains many more RPG elements than ME2 and most on this forum pan it relentlessly. The real issue here is that games are judged on a totality of factors, not the inclusion or exclusion of one or many, and that RPG elements don't ensure success nor failure.

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...
It would entirely defeat the purpose of them being Uncharted Worlds if they had interesting, dynamic stuff everywhere. One of ME2's biggest failings was that nowhere felt real: it was all too overly designed, small, fake and overpopulated. It never felt vast and empty like the dead worlds in the void of unending space should.

I agree with that. The planets felt empty and completely dead. So...why am I driving around on it if it's just a baren wasteland between me and my goal?

[Terror_K]

Someone With Mass wrote...

I didn't feel like I was wasting my time wandering around, looking for a door in ME2, which happened a lot in ME1.

You couldn't feel that way in ME2: everything was impossible to miss and the areas were so small and linear there wasn't much wandering to be had. You can't look for something you can already see before you've taken a step or that you know will be at the end of the level because there's only one path.

And walking around the Citadel wasn't much exploring after I did it a few times and knew where everything was that's actually important, like the shops, the clubs and all that. Then it just became an annoying labyrinth. In ME2, I could just go directly to the stores instead of messing around with the elevators and the hallways that were obviously there to just give me a false sense of a grand scale.

You do know there was rapid transit, right?

Also, The Citadel may have given a false sense of grand scale, but ME2 almost never gave a sense of scale at all, false or otherwise. Everywhere felt small, and in a game that's supposed to be epic and vast and be portraying the vastness of space, that's unacceptable.

[SalsaDMA]

Someone With Mass wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
It's a collective effort of map layout, techniques and overall work gone into what the map is supposed to be about that emates the feel you get from it. If you really feel that you got the same vibe of exploration from ME2 that you got from ME1, then your mind works in a totally different way than mine.

I didn't feel like I was wasting my time wandering around, looking for a door in ME2, which happened a lot in ME1.

And walking around the Citadel wasn't much exploring after I did it a few times and knew where everything was that's actually important, like the shops, the clubs and all that. Then it just became an annoying labyrinth. In ME2, I could just go directly to the stores instead of messing around with the elevators and the hallways that were obviously there to just give me a false sense of a grand scale.

Right there, you just admitted that you had to explore the citadel the first time to get to know the layout, whereas in ME2 you didn't need to explore at all.

Thank you.

I'm wondering what on earth you are talking about when making the "I didn't feel like I was wasting my time wandering around, looking for a door in ME2, which happened a lot in ME1." comment?
I never felt like I was trying to find a door that I couldn't find???

Also, from your comments, I'm wondering why you want a map to walk on at all. It sounds like you would be more happy just getting a screen where you could select 'shop' options, or 'locations of interests' like how the early games handled cities. "Click here to enter the blacksmithscreen. Click here to enter the magic university screen. Click here to enter level trainer screen... etc. etc."

If anything, it sounds like you don't want immersion in your game, but just a quick screenflick between mission 1 and 2, so you can get on with your actionfun...

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

Then don't include them. My first time I explored an uncharted world, I was impressed. By the third time. I was bored by how generic everything felt. Exploration is not exploration if there is nothing to explore. 

I agree with that. Driving around on a deserted planet just feels like a waste of time when you're past the awe of the scale.

[Il Divo]

marshalleck wrote...

 There are a lot more planets out there with surfaces like that of our moon, Mars, or Venus than there are those like Earth with a rich terrestrial biome. 

Fair enough. Now why am I exploring 'barren' planets if they're supposed to be empty and contain nothing of interest? Minerals don't quite do it for me. 

[Zem_]

Someone With Mass wrote...
I agree with that. The planets felt empty and completely dead. So...why am I driving around on it if it's just a baren wasteland between me and my goal?

Well it's not like Joker can drop you right on top of the target!

Oh wait...

[Balek-Vriege]

Dumbing down and lack of complexity shouldn't be confused with eliminating redundancy in a system that can be annoying to many. It also seems the argument here is not that ME2 is dumbed down (a bad term, since its inherently and indirectly offensive by basically saying "this game is now made for dumb people), but it didn't have enough "material gain." In ME1 we collected hoards of useless weapons, armor and mods and also explored generic landscapes 100% for a mineral deposit. In ME2 there was absolutely no aquisition of large amounts of loot and no generic side mission maps.

The focus of the Mass Effect has always been the storytelling and the combat. Loot only served to service combat as a sub mechanic that didn't work so well. I would argue Bioware has taken the needlessly bulky and ineffectual mechanics and made them more streamlined and meaningful. However, I do understand that many people get their core enjoyment out of finding the secret/random, uber weapon/armor in games. However, MMOs and old school JRPGs do this best, not Mass Effect.

[Someone With Mass]

Terror_K wrote...
You couldn't feel that way in ME2: everything was impossible to miss and the areas were so small and linear there wasn't much wandering to be had. You can't look for something you can already see before you've taken a step or that you know will be at the end of the level because there's only one path.

And that's bad...how?

If I have a pre-set goal, why would I want to mess around with something like a bunch of doors for five minutes instead of just getting what I came for and get out? So I can perhaps find something like an upgrade or something?

Again, I'm perfectly fine if I happen to find something like a weapon upgrade not far from the thing I came to pick up or interact with. I think of it as a reward too. 

[SalsaDMA]

Veex wrote...


I'm just not convinced this is the truth. BioWare wouldn't have included ANY type of inventory system in DA2 if that were the case, correct? How is that by catering to the masses Dragon Age 2 "dumbed down" their inventory system to be more robust than ME2? You can argue that it is more streamlined than Dragon Age, but for me to believe your premise is true they'd have had to undergo a similar "culling and neutering" of RPG systems to appeal to the masses.

Dragon Age 2 retains many more RPG elements than ME2 and most on this forum pan it relentlessly. The real issue here is that games are judged on a totality of factors, not the inclusion or exclusion of one or many, and that RPG elements don't ensure success nor failure.

Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that labeling an entire group of loot as 'junk'  is NOT dumbing down the loot system?

There are ways to do inventorey and loot system proper, but outright removing them, or handling it in the atrocious way it was done in DA2 is NOT handling it proper. It's more a show of not wanting to deal with the issue and just throwing random shots at it with no real intent of design. If there really were someone that sat down and thought something along the lines of "I got a good idea for a loot system" and then came up with DA2, then I can only feel sorry for them.

No, ME1's invnetory system wasn't done well. In fact it was a crappy UI as I have ever seen. But fixing the UI does not mean cutting out the whole system. That's like treating someone for a high blood pressure by cutting out their heart...

[crimzontearz]

streamlining and removing are 2 different things

MERPG and NWoD are both RPGs, Both have progression and both have stats and rolls and whatnot

the difference is that NWoD is intuitive, streamlined without losing depth and it is not anchored to zillions of tables and googles of inventory items (and dare I say a little more verosimile and credible than many other rpgs).

ME2 got some stramlining right but went WAY too far with it to the point that is was dumbed down here and there and even developers are admitting it (hell even crytek admitted that with crysis 2).

I'm glad to see more depth and streamlined complexity has been added back to the serie

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Exploration is about discovery, yes. Discovery is not going down and being put on a track that just takes you there automatically. Exploration in ME2 N7 missions is like exploring a hallway with no doors except the one at the end which has the one thing you're looking for in it.

ME1 wasn't that different from the same deal once you were done driving around with the Mako and went to the building that's marked on you map.

As many other people said, all ME2 did was cutting out the driving, because we have a shuttle now.

Ah, the unique kodiak shuttle, that can land into enemy bases when the writers have time short, but on the other hand has to land on the far side of the ship if the writers want you to shoot things up.

[Someone With Mass]

SalsaDMA wrote...
If anything, it sounds like you don't want immersion in your game, but just a quick screenflick between mission 1 and 2, so you can get on with your actionfun...

Again, I don't find myself being awestruck by having to walk five minutes on a station like the Citadel to just find a store. 

I have seen the Citadel many times before. I know that it's grand and a marvelous technological achievement. I don't need to be shown it to believe it.

It's just a waste of ****ing time.