378 réponses à ce sujet

[Jebel Krong]

i can also be very immersed in ME1 - some of the UNCs are lovely, but they are the sterile lovely of a science exhibit, not an interactive game. ME2 wasn't perfect either but it was a step in the right direction - it just needs opening up a bit in terms of real (on foot) exploration and non-linearity - i do agree the hubs in ME2 were too small in available area, but the sense of scale was there and portrayed if you just looked for it. it's one of those things where you get the impression that the limiting factor is the tech (whether that's engine/console/whatever) rather than developer ambition, sometimes.

[marshalleck]

Zem_ wrote...

Nice try, but until Mass Effect puts you in a 30 hour long corridor, 

That's exactly what ME2 did...minus the sense of scale, and absolutely ginormous set pieces.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 juin 2011 - 03:31 .

[Terror_K]

Fixers0 wrote...

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. 

Exactly. It was more about the whole sci-fi exploration experience than it was about strict gameplay. And, as stated, was completely optional. I think it's a bit selfish for people to want something gone like that that's optional at the expense of those who enjoy it and feel it adds to the game for them. But then of course when you state that "it's optional" they'll immediately say that they still want to play all the game and experience and get as much as they can, even if it doesn't interest them. To that I ask, "why should every aspect of the game appeal to you? Especially if its at the expense of others?"

Of course, I realise there's a certain amount of hipocrisy to this from me considering I've repeatedly lambasted against things like multiplayer and Kinect support, moreso because I feel that time, resources and money could be spent in more important areas of the game than things I feel don't really add to it in any meaningful way and/or don't suit it, IMO. So there's a degree of perspective there. Personally though, I really do want ME3 to feel like I'm in space again and to immerse me, because ME2 just failed to. And I think I need at least a few (not a whole bunch like ME1, but at least 3 or 4) dead, barren, vast worlds to visit and roam on at my leisure to feel this again.

[Someone With Mass]

marshalleck wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

Nice try, but until Mass Effect puts you in a 30 hour long corridor, 

That's exactly what ME2 did...minus the sense of scale, and absolutely ginormous set pieces.

The only difference is that Mass Effect didn't even attempt to have variation in those corridors on the planets, ships or space stations unless it was one of the main missions.  

[Rockworm503]

marshalleck wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

Nice try, but until Mass Effect puts you in a 30 hour long corridor, 

That's exactly what ME2 did...minus the sense of scale, and absolutely ginormous set pieces.

OH god comparing ME2 to FF13.... I think I'm gonna go slit my wrists

[Veex]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

I'm yet again completely opposed to this idea. If this were true, Mass Effect 2 would have flopped miserably on its face. It wouldn't have been BioWare's second most critically acclaimed title ever. Existing BioWare RPG fans obviously still enjoyed this game, or it would have been drug through mud like Dragon Age 2 has been. If appealing to both market segments "didn't fully work" Mass Effect 2 wouldn't have seen the success it had. I'm not sure how you can ignore one and claim Dragon Age 2 was their first attempt at this.

The issue here is that one game, despite having fewer RPG elements, is a GOOD game. The other, while having more robust RPG elements, isn't as good. You can flount inventories and mechanics all day long and the above will not change.

All I'm positing here, if in a round about and really convulted manner, is that traditional inventories and RPG systems aren't going to be universally good for every game BioWare makes. They've got to design each game with respect to what makes that game functionally enjoyable and proper, not to whatever standard of their past work their fans hold them too.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

i do agree the hubs in ME2 were too small in available area, but the sense of scale was there and portrayed if you just looked for it. it's one of those things where you get the impression that the limiting factor is the tech (whether that's engine/console/whatever) rather than developer ambition, sometimes.

I believe --according to several dev statements-- that the reason levels were overally smaller in ME2 was to completely avoid loading delays in levels themselves as much as possible, but also that the levels in ME1 used up a lot of memory given the style of game Mass Effect is, and that they needed to reduce the size of the levels to keep the framerate high and consistent. Since then with ME3 I believe they've said that they've found new ways to increase performance and memory efficiency, which along with some refinements to the engine has allowed them to go back to larger levels again without having to sacrifice framerate or increase loading times too much (along with better techniques to hide loading and have it going on during non-interactive gameplay, via cutscenes, etc.)

[marshalleck]

Rockworm503 wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

Zem_ wrote...

Nice try, but until Mass Effect puts you in a 30 hour long corridor, 

That's exactly what ME2 did...minus the sense of scale, and absolutely ginormous set pieces.

OH god comparing ME2 to FF13.... I think I'm gonna go slit my wrists

The comparison is poor, according to the stated principles. If huge vistas and gigantic set pieces make great level design, then FFXIII had outstanding level design because it has both of those elements in spades. 

However it also has extreme linearity, to the point of several playfields being quite literally one long straight line. Which is why I think there has to be more than just "epic vista" and "set pieces!!1" in level design, to make those levels good. Interactivity on some level is a good starting point, and multiple branching paths (or no particular set path at all) to your goal is another.

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 juin 2011 - 03:40 .

[In Exile]

I'd be very dissapointed if the war with the reapers didn't have lots of explosions, combat and otherwise was an action-filled bonanza. I don't see how a galactic invasion and the genocide of humanity on Earth wouldn't entail precisely these things. And as I said: ME1 and ME2 were introduced the same way.



All explosions, armies of geth, wiping humanity from the galaxy, the content of the trailer being essentially Noveria, Virmire and last battle on the Citadel.



ME2 is all rock and explosions.

gogman25 wrote...
No, im not opposed to a game being 'simple', im opposed to a game being stripped of complexity in an attempt to gain more sales and failing.

Not only did ME2 have Bioware's highest critic and user-critic reviews, but it sold 300,000 more copies than ME1. So... it was simplified and gained more sales and succeed (critically and commercially).

[FrozenShadow]

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.

Yes, exploration is fun and I was impressed of what I saw. But after second or third time of playing, that "exploration" lost all it's fun. It became just waste of time. Because what else would it be driving around about 5-15 min just get your objective? Also what there is to be discovered? Minerals and other useless collection mission items. Crashed probes with random mods, you found more than enough without those pods. Or those few random finding in few planets, which doesn't give you more than some text and note in your planet map. Yes, those are so worth of all that time you need use to find them by driving around.

Now did I like the way how ME2 handled this exploration issue or lack of it actually? No, I didn't like it. I actually missed that exploration part, because it would have been fun to search those planets some more. However under no circumstances I would want that planet exploration to be like it was in ME1, because that's just waste.

Now much better way to handle that exploration issue is like they did in Overload DLC. You had chance to explore and even fight to get some info like in ME1 and you had to actually drive in your target. I liked it. And what made it even better was that they had kept it sort enough so that it wouldn't become waste of time, like it was in many ME1 planets. So, I really hope that, if there is gonna be planet exploration in ME3, it would be like in Overload DLC and not like in ME1.

Even better would be that there would be both, exploration missions and directly to target mission in ME3. That way those who want more exploration and feel of realism and those who doesn't like exploration that much could be happy.

[nhsk]

In Exile wrote...

Not only did ME2 have Bioware's highest critic and user-critic reviews, but it sold 300,000 more copies than ME1. So... it was simplified and gained more sales and succeed (critically and commercially).

Could that be because I f.example can remember seing ME2 adds on the TV but not for ME1? And the fact that ME2 hit the PS3 as well as opposed to ME1 who originally was exclusive to the Xbox?

So 300.000 more copies isn't really a lot... In that perspective.

You saw a lot of action in adds, CoD, Halo and Gears fans went and bought it.

Yay

Modifié par nhsk, 28 juin 2011 - 03:50 .

[littlezack]

What multiple branching paths?

You land on the planet. X marks the spot. Point A. To point B. Yes, there's no set path, but there might as well be. If I draw an X on a map and tell you to go to it, you'll probably just follow a straight line to the X, especially if there isn't anything in your way or any reason to deviate.

I mean, really, people are surprised they changed this in ME2? What else could they do? ;'ME2 - this time, with twice the barren and lifeless environments!' That'll grab people.

[Terror_K]

Veex wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

I'm yet again completely opposed to this idea. If this were true, Mass Effect 2 would have flopped miserably on its face. It wouldn't have been BioWare's second most critically acclaimed title ever. Existing BioWare RPG fans obviously still enjoyed this game, or it would have been drug through mud like Dragon Age 2 has been. If appealing to both market segments "didn't fully work" Mass Effect 2 wouldn't have seen the success it had. I'm not sure how you can ignore one and claim Dragon Age 2 was their first attempt at this.

The issue here is that one game, despite having fewer RPG elements, is a GOOD game. The other, while having more robust RPG elements, isn't as good. You can flount inventories and mechanics all day long and the above will not change.

All I'm positing here, if in a round about and really convulted manner, is that traditional inventories and RPG systems aren't going to be universally good for every game BioWare makes. They've got to design each game with respect to what makes that game functionally enjoyable and proper, not to whatever standard of their past work their fans hold them too.

It wasn't as big a leap with ME2 though. Yes, it was basically the same principle, but Mass Effect was already part TPS and part RPG, as opposed to Dragon Age which was pure RPG from the start. Also, Dragon Age was originally designed as a return to roots title for BioWare with the PC as lead (originally only) platform and as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate that was in development for about 7 years all up, and then the sequel tried to be a console-driven hack'n'slash hybrid affair that unashamedly turned the middle-finger towards the entire concept of the Dragon Age IP and was crapped out in about a year.

Simply put, DA2 was a betrayal to what the original set out to be, while ME2 was merely twisted too far in one direction in regards to a factor that was already well part of it from the beginning. Also keep in mind, while ME2 reviewed very well, there were still a lot of disgruntled hardcore fans on these very boards (hence why some of the RPG is returning to ME3 thankfully) and the game also didn't sell incredibly well, despite the rave reviews (it did decently, but comes nowhere close to the likes of CoD, Gears, Halo, Assassin's Creed, etc.).

Still, there is a certain degree of truth to what you say: ME2 was a better game than DA2 was, but ME2 wasn't as rushed either. Still, DA2 was far more twisted than ME2 was, if only because it was a greater leap. The parallels are still very much there though, and I personally see little difference between these two sequels and have vocally stated my overall disapproval of the direction that BioWare seems to be heading lately. At least there were enough fans on the DA2 side of things to actually shake things up there, albeit it being a rather late response from BioWare, Laidlaw and the DA2 team on the issue.

Also, as a final note, ME2 didn't try to almost completely reboot itself either and completely change its art design to the point of making half of itself not even look the same any more. What they did to Dragon Age (and in order to broaden its appeal rather than for existing fans no less) was basically the equivalent of if ME3 were to come along and asari suddenly had long, flowing purple hair and turians had feathers, with no explanation as if it always were that way.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
Exactly. It was more about the whole sci-fi exploration experience than it was about strict gameplay. And, as stated, was completely optional. I think it's a bit selfish for people to want something gone like that that's optional at the expense of those who enjoy it and feel it adds to the game for them.

Of course is selfish. When you want to give me (and every other gamer who dislikes this) $10 for having it included in our games at the cost of content we like then we have something to talk about. Otherwise, in general, I think every gamer is entitled to be selfish with their money.

But then of course when you state that "it's optional" they'll immediately say that they still want to play all the game and experience and get as much as they can, even if it doesn't interest them. To that I ask, "why should every aspect of the game appeal to you? Especially if its at the expense of others?"

Because everyone works to earn their $$ (unless they're young and their family is generous)?

Of course, I realise there's a certain amount of hipocrisy to this from me considering I've repeatedly lambasted against things like multiplayer and Kinect support, moreso because I feel that time, resources and money could be spent in more important areas of the game than things I feel don't really add to it in any meaningful way and/or don't suit it, IMO. So there's a degree of perspective there. Personally though, I really do want ME3 to feel like I'm in space again and to immerse me, because ME2 just failed to. And I think I need at least a few (not a whole bunch like ME1, but at least 3 or 4) dead, barren, vast worlds to visit and roam on at my leisure to feel this again.

The bold is exactly what anyone against exploration (of the sort you're arguing for) would say.

It still boggles the mind someone would enjoy the reskinned terror content in ME. It's like someone coming out and praising DA2 for the reskins and saying they wish they could explore more identical caves.

[Terror_K]

littlezack wrote...

What multiple branching paths?

You land on the planet. X marks the spot. Point A. To point B. Yes, there's no set path, but there might as well be. If I draw an X on a map and tell you to go to it, you'll probably just follow a straight line to the X, especially if there isn't anything in your way or any reason to deviate.

I mean, really, people are surprised they changed this in ME2? What else could they do? ;'ME2 - this time, with twice the barren and lifeless environments!' That'll grab people.

The answer is simple: mix it up.

Give us a few N7 style missions, a few barren UNC style missions and a few places like the main hub area in Overlord. Most of the problems go away when you've got a mix of all of these here because most of the issues came from there being too much X and not enough Y in ME1 and ME2 for varying reasons. Adding UNC missions back brings back the barren, dead, vast worlds that belong in sci-fi and make the ME universe feel real again, while having N7 missions means there aren't too many dead UNC ones and there's more interesting content on prettier planets, while Overlord hub style areas mix and match the best factors of both: interesting content on larger, vast areas that look good too.

[In Exile]

nhsk wrote...
Could that be because I f.example can remember seing ME2 adds on the TV but not for ME1? And the fact that ME2 hit the PS3 as well as opposed to ME1 who originally was exclusive to the Xbox?

So 300.000 more copies isn't really a lot... In that perspective.

No. It's 360 sales only. But I do need to correct myself: it was only 150,000 for the 360 difference. At $40 per game, that means 6,000,000$ in revenue for Bioware/EA. That's a lot of money.

You saw a lot of action in adds, CoD, Halo and Gears fans went and bought it.

Yay

So? It sold more. If the argument is the redesign affect sales, well, that's just plain wrong.

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
 Adding UNC missions back brings back the barren, dead, vast worlds that belong in sci-fi and make the ME universe feel real again

What sci-fi exactly had barren, lifeless worlds? I'm really curious about this one.

[nhsk]

Yes sure, I see it from the developer / publisher side, but then don't sell it to us an RPG when we know what kind of games BW usually do and we RPG fans love.

[Il Divo]

JeanLuc761 wrote...

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. 

It's funny that you mention Valve...because Meet the Medic just launched! 

[Someone With Mass]

nhsk wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Not only did ME2 have Bioware's highest critic and user-critic reviews, but it sold 300,000 more copies than ME1. So... it was simplified and gained more sales and succeed (critically and commercially).

Could that be because I f.example can remember seing ME2 adds on the TV but not for ME1? And the fact that ME2 hit the PS3 as well as opposed to ME1 who originally was exclusive to the Xbox?

So 300.000 more copies isn't really a lot... In that perspective.

You saw a lot of action in adds, CoD, Halo and Gears fans went and bought it.

Yay

Yeah. So?

BioWare wants to make as much money as possible like any other company in the world.

[marshalleck]

In Exile wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
 Adding UNC missions back brings back the barren, dead, vast worlds that belong in sci-fi and make the ME universe feel real again

What sci-fi exactly had barren, lifeless worlds? I'm really curious about this one.

LV-426 in Alien immediately springs to mind.

And yes, Mass Effect failed to achieve anything close to as haunting as that. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 28 juin 2011 - 04:05 .

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

It still boggles the mind someone would enjoy the reskinned terror content in ME. It's like someone coming out and praising DA2 for the reskins and saying they wish they could explore more identical caves.

Aside from the difference being that DA2 caves literally are identical while ME1 planets just seem that way (to you anyway... I personally don't feel that way, though I can see why people do), the caves add nothing interesting or immersive to the experience.

Mass Effect is partially about traveling and exploring space, and having realistic, dead worlds like you'd find in space can add to this experience. It is admittedly more of an experience and immersion thing than a gameplay one. I also personally feel they made the universe feel more real, while ME2 being devoid of them made everything feel small, fake, overly populated and lacking in scale. The caves in DA2 just don't add anything for anybody really, especially when they literally are the same, while at least the ME1 team went to the effort of providing different hills and valleys, different textures, different skyboxes, different locations of things, different weather and hazards, etc. Each world at least managed to have some character, and they even went to the effort of making sure the right textures were on the right surfaces (i.e. hillsides were different from plains, high terrains sometimes different from lower terrain, etc.).

I often think that it's actually a bit of an insult to the original team whenever somebody claims the planets were "all the same" given these factors, when a lesser studio easily could have used the same plain starry-sky skybox and the same dirt-brown ground texture on every planet and just slapped them there willy-nilly with no concern for the surface, etc.

[SalsaDMA]

littlezack wrote...

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.

Ahhh......

Now I get it....

The whole debate is the age old "goal oriented" vs "enjoy the journey" thing.

I'm sorry. For my case, I am definately of the type that want to enjoy the journey through the game.
If I only wanted to reach the goal of the game as fast as possible, I would start wondering why I was playing at all.

For me, games are about enjoying the journey, not just about getting to the goal ASAP.

So my advice would be: start trying to enjoy the journey instead of being so focused on the goal at the mythical end of it.

[littlezack]

SalsaDMA wrote...

littlezack wrote...

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.

Ahhh......

Now I get it....

The whole debate is the age old "goal oriented" vs "enjoy the journey" thing.

I'm sorry. For my case, I am definately of the type that want to enjoy the journey through the game.
If I only wanted to reach the goal of the game as fast as possible, I would start wondering why I was playing at all.

For me, games are about enjoying the journey, not just about getting to the goal ASAP.

So my advice would be: start trying to enjoy the journey instead of being so focused on the goal at the mythical end of it.

The journey is only interesting when it has interesting things in it. There's nothing to enjoy about driving around an empty rock.  In games like, say, GTA4, I enjoy driving all over the place - I might run into a situation where I can do something, swering through traffic is cool, enjoying the scenery. In ME1? There's just empty landscapes. And thresher maws. Really...annoying...thresher maws.

[Il Divo]

I often think that it's actually a bit of an insult to the original team whenever somebody claims the planets were "all the same" given these factors, when a lesser studio easily could have used the same plain starry-sky skybox and the same dirt-brown ground texture on every planet and just slapped them there willy-nilly with no concern for the surface, etc.

No more than any criticism is an insult to the development team, such as accusations of dumbing down. You think every planet felt unique. I disagree, particularly due to the implementation of side quests and the lack of interaction. The time the  developers spent creating the same square of terrain could have been used to provide another Noveria, or Virmire, which I think is a much better use of resources. 

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 juin 2011 - 04:13 .