378 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

marshalleck wrote...

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.

Eh? Deus Ex is totally different kind of game.

ME1 was success in some way doing it and  ME2 in other ways. Both also failed in some aspect, those aspects just where little different ones.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2011 - 02:59 .

[marshalleck]

Lumikki wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

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.

Eh? Deus Ex is totally different kind of game.

Except it's really not, unless you want to make the singular focus of Mass Effect about cover-based third person gameplay--in which case they've been trumped by pretty much every other mainstream developer out there. 

[Terror_K]

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.

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.

Couldn't disagree more. Everywhere in ME2 felt like a level in a game. I was almost never immersed in the place I was in, it was always just too... fake. Most places in ME1 drew me into the universe and setting, but ME2 failed to do that. The only exception was Illium, during the car trip on Thane's recruitment mission. Beyond that even that felt small and fake until LotSB came along and introduced the car chase. Quite a few other places looked kind of pretty and nice and had potential, but it was ruined by the level design itself and how linear and small the areas felt. Almost every time a place had a chance of feeling epic and real visually it was ruined by the layout itself and lack of an open feeling.

Also, elevators are still a better disguise of loading the next section than pathetic loading screens which don't even try.

That said, the Earth under attack in the E3 ME3 demo gave me some hope for ME3. That certainly looked grander and more epic in scale than anything in ME2. One of the first things I thought first seeing that footage was, "Yessss! That actually feels more like it! That's what ME2 was missing, and it's back!" And I wasn't even watching it full-screen on high detail, yet I could feel the sense of scale.

[SomeKindaEnigma]

sumoaltus wrote...

These forums are getting pretty dumbed down with these redundant threads

This is all that needs to be said.  End of thread.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Terror_K wrote...

Couldn't disagree more. Everywhere in ME2 felt like a level in a game. I was almost never immersed in the place I was in, it was always just too... fake. Most places in ME1 drew me into the universe and setting, but ME2 failed to do that. The only exception was Illium, during the car trip on Thane's recruitment mission. Beyond that even that felt small and fake until LotSB came along and introduced the car chase. Quite a few other places looked kind of pretty and nice and had potential, but it was ruined by the level design itself and how linear and small the areas felt. Almost every time a place had a chance of feeling epic and real visually it was ruined by the layout itself and lack of an open feeling.

Also, elevators are still a better disguise of loading the next section than pathetic loading screens which don't even try.

That said, the Earth under attack in the E3 ME3 demo gave me some hope for ME3. That certainly looked grander and more epic in scale than anything in ME2. One of the first things I thought first seeing that footage was, "Yessss! That actually feels more like it! That's what ME2 was missing, and it's back!" And I wasn't even watching it full-screen on high detail, yet I could feel the sense of scale.

This. All of it.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

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.

Couldn't disagree more. Everywhere in ME2 felt like a level in a game. I was almost never immersed in the place I was in, it was always just too... fake. Most places in ME1 drew me into the universe and setting, but ME2 failed to do that. The only exception was Illium, during the car trip on Thane's recruitment mission. Beyond that even that felt small and fake until LotSB came along and introduced the car chase. Quite a few other places looked kind of pretty and nice and had potential, but it was ruined by the level design itself and how linear and small the areas felt. Almost every time a place had a chance of feeling epic and real visually it was ruined by the layout itself and lack of an open feeling.

Also, elevators are still a better disguise of loading the next section than pathetic loading screens which don't even try.

That said, the Earth under attack in the E3 ME3 demo gave me some hope for ME3. That certainly looked grander and more epic in scale than anything in ME2. One of the first things I thought first seeing that footage was, "Yessss! That actually feels more like it! That's what ME2 was missing, and it's back!" And I wasn't even watching it full-screen on high detail, yet I could feel the sense of scale.

illusory freedom is still illusory but better than either previous system? i can get behind that, but i don't want you complaining about it 6 months after the initial 'awe' has worn off! 

[Lumikki]

marshalleck wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Eh? Deus Ex is totally different kind of game.

Except it's really not, unless you want to make the singular focus of Mass Effect about cover-based third person gameplay--in which case they've been trumped by pretty much every other mainstream developer out there. 

Have you seen movie named "Doom". In end of that movie it change from 3rd perspective to 1st. perspective.
That's the difference, the cinematic perspective. Biowares is trying to combinate hole gameplay action in cinematic ways. FPS doesn't provide smooth transaction between cinema and shooter, because the perspective is different.

It's not the elements what matters, it's how they are fit togather as used what makes them different.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2011 - 03:18 .

[JeanLuc761]

Jebel Krong wrote...

illusory freedom is still illusory but better than either previous system? i can get behind that, but i don't want you complaining about it 6 months after the initial 'awe' has worn off! 

Well, think about the end of Mass Effect 1 where you ran along the Citadel tower.  There was only one path, but it felt HUGE. 

The planets were...okay.  I enjoyed them a lot more when I stopped driving over the entire map looking for minerals or medallions that have zero ingame impact whatsoever.

[sp0ck 06]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

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.

Couldn't disagree more. Everywhere in ME2 felt like a level in a game. I was almost never immersed in the place I was in, it was always just too... fake. Most places in ME1 drew me into the universe and setting, but ME2 failed to do that. The only exception was Illium, during the car trip on Thane's recruitment mission. Beyond that even that felt small and fake until LotSB came along and introduced the car chase. Quite a few other places looked kind of pretty and nice and had potential, but it was ruined by the level design itself and how linear and small the areas felt. Almost every time a place had a chance of feeling epic and real visually it was ruined by the layout itself and lack of an open feeling.

Also, elevators are still a better disguise of loading the next section than pathetic loading screens which don't even try.

That said, the Earth under attack in the E3 ME3 demo gave me some hope for ME3. That certainly looked grander and more epic in scale than anything in ME2. One of the first things I thought first seeing that footage was, "Yessss! That actually feels more like it! That's what ME2 was missing, and it's back!" And I wasn't even watching it full-screen on high detail, yet I could feel the sense of scale.

What about the Collector Ship?  Overlord?  Shadow Broker Ship?

It wasn't until my most recent playthrough, when i actually stopped to admire some of the vistas, that I realized there is a great sense of scale in ME2, the game just doesn't take advantage of it.  Look out the windows or blaconies on Citadel, Illium, Omega.  Kasumi's LM.  Even Jacob's LM, with the huge crashed ship.

Besides, ME3 already looks to have upped the ante in the scale department, so the discussion is superficial.

[Arcturus Shepard]

Ahh...nothing like a fresh cup of nerd rage in the morning...

[marshalleck]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

What about the Collector Ship?  Overlord?  Shadow Broker Ship?

It wasn't until my most recent playthrough, when i actually stopped to admire some of the vistas, that I realized there is a great sense of scale in ME2, the game just doesn't take advantage of it.  Look out the windows or blaconies on Citadel, Illium, Omega.  Kasumi's LM.  Even Jacob's LM, with the huge crashed ship.

Besides, ME3 already looks to have upped the ante in the scale department, so the discussion is superficial.

If this is good level design, then Final Fantasy XIII has the best level design ever. 

[sp0ck 06]

marshalleck wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

What about the Collector Ship?  Overlord?  Shadow Broker Ship?

It wasn't until my most recent playthrough, when i actually stopped to admire some of the vistas, that I realized there is a great sense of scale in ME2, the game just doesn't take advantage of it.  Look out the windows or blaconies on Citadel, Illium, Omega.  Kasumi's LM.  Even Jacob's LM, with the huge crashed ship.

Besides, ME3 already looks to have upped the ante in the scale department, so the discussion is superficial.

If this is good level design, then Final Fantasy XIII has the best level design ever. 

Didn't say it's good level design, but it certainly looks sweeping and gives a sense of scale

[JeanLuc761]

marshalleck wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

What about the Collector Ship?  Overlord?  Shadow Broker Ship?

It wasn't until my most recent playthrough, when i actually stopped to admire some of the vistas, that I realized there is a great sense of scale in ME2, the game just doesn't take advantage of it.  Look out the windows or blaconies on Citadel, Illium, Omega.  Kasumi's LM.  Even Jacob's LM, with the huge crashed ship.

Besides, ME3 already looks to have upped the ante in the scale department, so the discussion is superficial.

If this is good level design, then Final Fantasy XIII has the best level design ever. 

Half-Life 2 is a very linear game with minor exploration elements, and it's widely known to have some of the best level design ever put into a game. 

Wide, empty levels does not good level design make. 

[Whatever42]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

What about the Collector Ship?  Overlord?  Shadow Broker Ship?

It wasn't until my most recent playthrough, when i actually stopped to admire some of the vistas, that I realized there is a great sense of scale in ME2, the game just doesn't take advantage of it.  Look out the windows or blaconies on Citadel, Illium, Omega.  Kasumi's LM.  Even Jacob's LM, with the huge crashed ship.

Besides, ME3 already looks to have upped the ante in the scale department, so the discussion is superficial.

ME3 did look amazing. And LotSB and Overlord were great. And ME2 also had a few really open, expansive moments as well. I loved standing on the bridge in the Thane recruitment mission.

But I think the level design could have been better in a lot of areas. Omega felt small. Illium had an awesome cityscape but in the main hub area, it still felt too small. The citadel looked great through those windows but it wasn't around you.

I keep thinking of the Zaeed recruitment mission with its narrow, tree lined corridors. Compare that with overlord, with its amazing vistas. Both had corridors but overlord was impressive. 

But as you said, I think Bioware knows this and from what we've seen with ME3, it looks great.

[Rockworm503]

Lumikki wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Eh? Deus Ex is totally different kind of game.

Except it's really not, unless you want to make the singular focus of Mass Effect about cover-based third person gameplay--in which case they've been trumped by pretty much every other mainstream developer out there. 

Have you seen movie named "Doom". In end of that movie it change from 3rd perspective to 1st. perspective.
That's the difference, the cinematic perspective. Biowares is trying to combinate hole gameplay action in cinematic ways. FPS doesn't provide smooth transaction between cinema and shooter, because the perspective is different.

It's not the elements what matters, it's how they are used what makes them different.

Changing the subject completely but might I suggest a game called Bioshock?  FPS with no custcenes to speak of yet its just as cinematic as ME IMHO The narrative was so strong in that game that very few games come even close and all in the view of your character.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

illusory
freedom is still illusory but better than either previous system? i can
get behind that, but i don't want you complaining about it 6 months
after the initial 'awe' has worn off! [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

We'll see. Keep in mind that even today I can immerse myself in ME1 greatly, and I still love the Thane recruitment car scene even though it was the first piece of ME2 footage I ever saw.

sp0ck 06 wrote...

What about the Collector Ship?  Overlord?  Shadow Broker Ship?

It wasn't until my most recent playthrough, when i actually stopped to admire some of the vistas, that I realized there is a great sense of scale in ME2, the game just doesn't take advantage of it.  Look out the windows or blaconies on Citadel, Illium, Omega.  Kasumi's LM.  Even Jacob's LM, with the huge crashed ship.

Besides, ME3 already looks to have upped the ante in the scale department, so the discussion is superficial.

I forgot about the Collector Ship. That did kind of feel big once it got to that big, open area with all the pods. It didn't last though, and most of the rest of it felt rather levely. Aiea (Jacob's LM) was a pretty place, but one of those ones I mentioned as having potential that was wasted by its overly linear, artificial nature and overall design. It looked nice, but felt small and gamey. Same goes for Zorya (Zaeed's LM).

The main hub of Overlord was fantastic, and what I'd like to see more of for the UNC/N7 mission equivalents for ME3 actually, and the Shadow Broker ship was actually pretty good too, but I don't really count DLC in my evaluation of ME2's areas: just the vanilla game (hence me saying Illium didn't really feel big until LotSB: that was kind of a condemnation to say, "it took a DLC pack for the place to feel real and have a decent scale to it").

Regarding looking out of windows, some of the vistas were nice, but the areas still felt small. The Citadel was actually very disappointing, IMO, moreso with the vista than the areas: it always looked so flat, los-res and fake to me. At least out the big windows at the staircase sections. It's not so bad when you just run by and glance at it, but if you stop and look out it looks pretty bad, IMO. Like somebody just painted something there.

Modifié par Terror_K, 28 juin 2011 - 03:23 .

[Lumikki]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Changing the subject completely but might I suggest a game called Bioshock?  FPS with no custcenes to speak of yet its just as cinematic as ME IMHO The narrative was so strong in that game that very few games come even close and all in the view of your character.

First person and cinematic doesn't even exist. Sometimes FP can be used in cienma to create special kind of effects. You need to look what cinematic perspective really means. Meaning how camera is used from multible different angles to create effects of cinema and so on. FPS has only one camera angle. You can zoom, but that's all what FPS offers.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2011 - 03:24 .

[Zem_]

marshalleck wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

What about the Collector Ship?  Overlord?  Shadow Broker Ship?

It wasn't until my most recent playthrough, when i actually stopped to admire some of the vistas, that I realized there is a great sense of scale in ME2, the game just doesn't take advantage of it.  Look out the windows or blaconies on Citadel, Illium, Omega.  Kasumi's LM.  Even Jacob's LM, with the huge crashed ship.

Besides, ME3 already looks to have upped the ante in the scale department, so the discussion is superficial.

If this is good level design, then Final Fantasy XIII has the best level design ever. 

Nice try, but until Mass Effect puts you in a 30 hour long corridor, no... it's NOTHING like the level design of FF13.

[Rockworm503]

Lumikki wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

Changing the subject completely but might I suggest a game called Bioshock?  FPS with no custcenes to speak of yet its just as cinematic as ME IMHO The narrative was so strong in that game that very few games come even close and all in the view of your character.

First person and cinematic doesn't even exist. You need to look what cinematic perspective really means. Meaning how camera is used from multible different angles to create effects of cinema and so on. FPS has only one camera angle. You can zoom, but that's all what FPS offers.

Eh my mistake... But I finished Metal Gear Solid 4 last night and cinematic doesn't always mean a good thing.

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Wasting a time is one thing,  but you seem to have missed the entire idea of the uncharted worlds, it wasn't about getting from A to B, it was about discovering the parts of the plantet and, it had much potential and it was an unique idea and it was always optional, you dind't have to find a missing mining team, you could always resuce someone on a derelict freighter.

I agree that the worlds were a bit barren, but that's also what the majority of the planets in the universe are, barren balls of rock, ice but all with different conditions, i certainly wish ther was more to do, but the way  Mass Effect 2 did is, wasn't much better instead of  Wide empty Worlds we now have small static labyrinths, both aren't very involving but at least the former was justified. 

[sighineedname]

This thread reminds me of old people yelling at young kids to get off their lawn. This is just a giant thread showcasing human's ability to elevate the past to false heights. Rose colored glasses. Yes, gaming is doomed. Soon we will all just be playing pong again.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

First person and cinematic doesn't even exist. You need to look what cinematic perspective really means. Meaning how camera is used from multible different angles to create effects of cinema and so on. FPS has only one camera angle. You can zoom, but that's all what FPS offers.

Camera can change though, like it does in Mass Effect. You were talking about Deus Ex before, right? That's a classic case: during conversations you switch out of first-person perspective and into more cinematic angles.

[RainyDayLover]

I think the phrase "dumbed down" has been dumbed down here on thse forums.

[Rockworm503]

sighineedname wrote...

This thread reminds me of old people yelling at young kids to get off their lawn. This is just a giant thread showcasing human's ability to elevate the past to false heights. Rose colored glasses. Yes, gaming is doomed. Soon we will all just be playing pong again.

Good Pong was the only good game ever!

[Lumikki]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Eh my mistake... But I finished Metal Gear Solid 4 last night and cinematic doesn't always mean a good thing.

I don't mean is cinema good or bad for game. I mean that cinema it self doesn't exist in first person point. It's paradox, because first person point can only be one special effect in cinema, but it can't ever be hole cinema. Because there would be no cinema if it would be only first person view. It's oxymoron.

What Mass Effect is trying to create is full cinematic experience. That's why it has certain elements what fits well in cinematic experience and are used in certain ways.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 juin 2011 - 03:32 .