378 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

You know, if these debates just dropped the references to ME1 then we'd probably all broadly agree.

Who doesn't want more open maps? More weapon customization? More armor customization? More exploration? More squad customization?

Oh, we might continue to squabble on whether that customization is better provided within the current locker system or a more traditional inventory system but we wouldn't be constantly slagging on two good games.

The problem with traditional inventory in the ME series is that the gameplay is faster than in your traditional, tactical RPG. Having to stop to loot corpses or lockers is not only a drag on the action but immersion-breaking in a game that tries to be very cinematic.

Now, again, is the problem that there isn't an inventory system or is the real problem is the lack of customization? Because if its the latter, then ME3 is looking pretty good.

[marshalleck]

Il Divo wrote...

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. 

Ah, that explains it. You didn't bother to read the mission entries in your codex which explained why you were there, or you button-mashed through the conversations that led to the locations opening up on the galaxy map. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 juin 2011 - 02:38 .

[littlezack]

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. Their barren, vast and plain nature was part of their charm: a charm ME2 completely lacked.

I guess this is where we disagree then. When you look at a barren, vast and empty world, you see charm. I see...a barren, vast and empty world. Woohoo.

[Whatever42]

marshalleck wrote...

Ah, that explains it. You didn't bother to read the mission entries in your codex which explained why you were there. 

The mission codexes explain the main mission. But the main missions don't normally require exploration. The large majority of objectives were clearly marked on your map and you just drove there. No exploration required.

Driving around the map to pick up the useless garbage and minerals was the "exploration" and completely pointless.

Again, dropping the pointless comparisons between ME1 and ME2, wouldn't we all want exploration that actually led to something interesting? Like in Morrowind when you stumbled across the giant statue of a goddess?

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 28 juin 2011 - 02:39 .

[Terror_K]

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. 

Because there is stuff to find. It's just not a special encounter or super-duper weapon each time. The problem is you all want everything to be "interesting" and "dynamic" all the time. As a sci-fi fan I just found the planets themselves interesting enough, because never before had a video game had me really feel like I was out there in the unknown like ME1 did. It wasn't about the content and all the interesting stuff: it was about the experience and desolate loneliness. ME2 just felt like playing another generic game with its N7 missions (their gimmicky nature and lack of presentation didn't help either).

Veex wrote...

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.

I'd say "streamlining" and "more accessible" are the most misused terms myself.

In either case, BioWare seem to be reaching a compromise with ME3 and making things more involved and adding more customisation back. So what I've said can't be totally wrong if how "BioWare felt" is the manner by which things are judged, because they seemed to have since agreed that ME2 took things too far with its approach.

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.

The answer is simple: BioWare want to have their cake at eat it too. They want to appeal to the mainstream gamer and bring them into the fray, but at the same time keep their old fans. The problem is this doesn't fully work, as they've recently discovered with DA2. Largely because the very factors they have to cut and bring in to appeal to the masses are the very things that a large portion of their old fans love and hate respectively. BioWare want both audiences, so they're testing the waters and trying to find that perfect middle-ground. This is resulting in their games becoming more methodical and formulaic rather than just being made the way they should be to appeal to who they should.

You say "BioWare wouldn't have included ANY type of inventory" if they were doing what I suggested, but that would be if they were aiming solely for the mainstream dedicated shooter player, but they're not: they're aiming as far across the board as they can. As are most other game developers. That's why BioWare are currently in a rather ironic position as a studio previously dedicated almost solely to RPGs: while other game studios known for more action-oriented titles are trying to make their games slightly more complex and story-driven and adding more RPG factors, BioWare are making their games simpler and reducing their RPG elements in favour of more action-oriented ones. While other studios are becoming more "BioWare" lately, BioWare is becoming less like their old selves.

That's why gaming is stagnating recently and we're getting a whole bunch of samey titles: everybody is trying to find this perfect middle-ground to appeal to as many as possible. Everybody is making these story-driven action titles with light RPG elements. BioWare are simply approaching it from the other side because of who they are (or were).

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

try looking out of a window every now and then. ME2's sense of scale was better realised that #1's. and the goddamn elevators weren't representative of anything other than a poor disguise of loading the next section.

not everything has to be "interesting and dynamic" but in a vdeogame most of the time it should have a purpose - the vistas of ME2 were more interesting AND beautiful than the first game's barren skyboxes.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 28 juin 2011 - 02:47 .

[littlezack]

Fixers0 wrote...

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.

If I remember correctly, they more often than not drop you off at the entrance to the base.

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Yeah that would be wonderfull right, Like when you want to go to shopping mall, without having to walk  there from you're house, you just step out of your house and you're there.

O yes, this sounds really immersive. 

[Il Divo]

marshalleck wrote...

Ah, that explains it. You didn't bother to read the mission entries in your codex which explained why you were there, or you button-mashed through the conversations that led to the locations opening up on the galaxy map. 

Then I'm really not exploring, am I? Not when there's a map pointing out exactly where I should go to clear out a single room of enemies. Hell, the game may as well have removed the Mako completely and load Shepard right into the facility. 

[littlezack]

Because there is stuff to find. It's just not a special encounter or super-duper weapon each time. The problem is you all want everything to be "interesting" and "dynamic" all the time

Let me just stop you right there - is there really anything wrong with wanting a videogame to be as interesting as possible as often as possible?

[littlezack]

Fixers0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Yeah that would be wonderfull right, Like when you want to go to shopping mall, without having to walk  there from you're house, you just step out of your house and you're there.

O yes, this sounds really immersive. 

That would actually be awesome, both in game and out of game. I'd imagine, for most people, the fun of going to the mall isn't driving there.

Modifié par littlezack, 28 juin 2011 - 02:45 .

[Rockworm503]

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. Their barren, vast and plain nature was part of their charm: a charm ME2 completely lacked.

LOL you are funny.  vast barren boring driving is charming now.

[Rockworm503]

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

OMG that was the worst mission of the entire game.  THis monkey does not have the module add infinity..... yeah that was awesome!!!!

[Fixers0]

littlezack wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Yeah that would be wonderfull right, Like when you want to go to shopping mall, without having to walk  there from you're house, you just step out of your house and you're there.

O yes, this sounds really immersive. 

That would actually be awesome, both in game and out of game. I'd imagine, for most people, the fun of going to the mall isn't driving there.

It becomes even more fun when all the shops, expect for the one you have to go to are closed.

[Lumikki]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

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.

This is pretty much how I also see situation.

While a few aspect of ME was simplifyed without any good reason in my opinion, most of it was just cut the needless poorly working gameplay out and simplifyed to be more fun and less annoying.  So, now when they make ME3 they bring some stuff back from ME1, mostly what was simplifyed or cut out without good reason, but they keep core what was well done in ME2, only trying to little bit improve it. I don't my self see anything wrong in this design direction for Mass Effect serie.

While I also understand need of old school RPG, Mass Effect series was never that kind, it was allways trying to be hybrid of action RPG and TPS combat.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2011 - 02:51 .

[marshalleck]

Il Divo wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Ah, that explains it. You didn't bother to read the mission entries in your codex which explained why you were there, or you button-mashed through the conversations that led to the locations opening up on the galaxy map. 

Then I'm really not exploring, am I? Not when there's a map pointing out exactly where I should go to clear out a single room of enemies. Hell, the game may as well have removed the Mako completely and load Shepard right into the facility. 

You asked why you're on those planets. The answers to your question were given in the game. If you meant something else, perhaps you should have been more clear.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 juin 2011 - 02:49 .

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

Yeah that would be wonderfull right, Like when you want to go to shopping mall, without having to walk  there from you're house, you just step out of your house and you're there.

O yes, this sounds really immersive. 

That'd be great, actually.

If I'm out to get some exercise, I'll go somewhere else.

If I'm out to just get to a store and buy something and then be on my merry way, I'd rather like if it goes quick. Walking X amount of miles achieves absolutely nothing. I'd rather take some form of transportation like a car, train or bus.

I don't want to experience the hours it takes to get to a relay or planet via FTL aboard the Normandy either. Because it, just like driving the Mako on a deserted planet and walking around the Citadel (after I've already seen it) is just a waste of time and gives you absolutely nothing.

[Terror_K]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

You know, if these debates just dropped the references to ME1 then we'd probably all broadly agree.

Who doesn't want more open maps? More weapon customization? More armor customization? More exploration? More squad customization?

Oh, we might continue to squabble on whether that customization is better provided within the current locker system or a more traditional inventory system but we wouldn't be constantly slagging on two good games.

The problem with traditional inventory in the ME series is that the gameplay is faster than in your traditional, tactical RPG. Having to stop to loot corpses or lockers is not only a drag on the action but immersion-breaking in a game that tries to be very cinematic.

Now, again, is the problem that there isn't an inventory system or is the real problem is the lack of customization? Because if its the latter, then ME3 is looking pretty good.

There is definitely some wisdom to this. A lot of the problem (and why we go in loops) is quite often --I feel-- because many of us miss some of the factors from ME1 even if it was flawed and didn't feel ME2 had the right answers. When we complain the ME2 defenders point to the flawed variant from ME1 as if we're considering it the gold standard when we're really not, but we still feel compelled to defend it simply because we feel it's better than the ME2 equivalent (or lack thereof) even though we'll often acknowledge that the ME1 way wasn't necessarily the right way. I guess we still generally feel a flawed attempt is better than no attempt at all.

Regarding your final statement, there's also a great deal of truth in that too, IMO. Much of my main issues with ME2 with regards to inventory and the like were due not so much to the fact that it wasn't there, but what was there felt completely out of my control. The research/upgrade system felt linear and pointless, and even God-moddy since I could easily upgrade everything without restriction.

Customisation just felt completely gone, and what was there felt more cosmetic than actually offering any true depth. I know that melting down object after object into omni-gel wasn't ideal and having 10 versions of every item that weren't all that different in the long run wasn't anywhere near the best approach, but I never understood why weapon and armour modding went the way of the dodo at all, or why omni-tools and biotic amps went the same way.

When it comes down to it despite its flaws and unnecessary complexity I'd prefer a clumsy system that I can at least play with to one that's so simple it does all the work for me with barely any input, has no real trade-offs and offers no real customisation at all.

[Whatever42]

Jebel Krong wrote...

try looking out of a window every now and then. ME2's sense of scale was better realised that #1's. and the goddamn elevators weren't representative of anything other than a poor disguise of loading the next section.

ME2 did have some amazing, expansive backgrounds, absolutely. The Illium cityscape was great. Even cramped Omega had glimpses of a sprawling city.

I think they opened it up more in expansions like LotSB, where it felt even bigger because you weren't simply looking through a window or gap between two buildings. What we say in the gameplay in ME3, they opened it up even more. That looked incredibly open. The openness was illusionary, no doubt, but it felt BIG.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Because there is stuff to find. It's just not a special encounter or super-duper weapon each time. The problem is you all want everything to be "interesting" and "dynamic" all the time.

Yes, it's amazing that while playing a video game, I want everything to be interesting. I'm glad we understand how entertainment works. 

If a novel, is no longer interesting, then I stop  becoming interested. And so, I will stop reading it. It works the same with pretty much every medium. 

As a sci-fi fan I just found the planets themselves interesting enough, because never before had a video game had me really feel like I was out there in the unknown like ME1 did.

Probably with good reason. As a rule, gamers don't like doing nothing in what is an interactive medium. 

It wasn't about the content and all the interesting stuff: it was about the experience and desolate loneliness. 

I did not feel lonely; I felt bored. I think you're giving too much credit to the reskinned environments. 

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juin 2011 - 03:14 .

[sp0ck 06]

The focus of ME series is not on inventory management, randomly generated terrain exploration, or other "traditional" RPG elements. I don't play Mass Effect to collect loot and level up crafting abilities, I play it for the awesome story, cinematic set pieces, characters, and action.

Thus for BioWare to tack on these sorts of things because they feel like they have to fit into an ambigious definition of "RPG" is silly. If I want to play a traditional RPG I'll play Fallout or Oblivion. I'd much rather Mass Effect focus on what its good at.

Fact is, the newness and great atmosphere of ME1 covered up a game that was not a great traditional RPG. Inventory was terrible, useless loot, clunky mechanics, buggy, bloated skill trees. I loved ME1 but you can't sit there and tell me it was this classic RPG. ME2 was much more focused in terms of gameplay, it just fell flat in the plot pacing and coherency.

[Rockworm503]

SalsaDMA wrote...

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...

So.... its funner to go through your bag looking for what is actually junk over knowing right off the bat and not have to deal with it?
I for one wish junk wasn't there at all and that everything had a purpose at least I don't have to guess though.
Most of the stuff that had a use in DAO was more junk than the stuff labeled junk!

[Il Divo]

marshalleck wrote...

You asked why you're on those planets. The answers to your question were given in the game. If you meant something else, perhaps you should have been more clear.

And you'll understand if I don't consider those entries to be sufficient motivation. Killing a generic room full of enemies is not sufficient motivation to explore a barren planet. 


But I understand if you simply want to play semantics games. 

[marshalleck]

Lumikki wrote...

While I also understand need of old school RPG, Mass Effect series was never that kind, it was allways trying to be hybrid of action RPG and TPS combat.

You make it sound like hybridizing these two seemingly disparate game genres means the result has to be Mass Effect 2. I disagree; Ion Storm beat Bioware to the punch by about seven years with Deus Ex. And in many ways did it better.

[marshalleck]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
If I want to play a traditional RPG I'll play Fallout or Oblivion.

Neither of those are traditional RPGs, if by "Fallout" I am correct in assuming you meant "Fallout 3" since you also mentioned Oblivion, which was the debut of the game engine Fallout 3 used.