1467 réponses à ce sujet

[Vegos]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Again with the "making optional game modes is resources wasted" argument.  Didn't this get dubunked well over 20 pages back?  It takes VERY little time to program in script triggers that automate dialog choices and just apply the script to the game.

I think you use the word "debunked" pretty liberally.

[1136342t54_]

jreezy wrote...

Maybe they'll implement some kind of dialog alignment setting in the game.

I would love it. Hell at certain points in playthroughs I can't really bring myself to pick certain decisions due to the alignment unless I just do it for the hell of it or just don't care. Action mode combined with dialog alignment setting would be perfect.

[SheppardJohn]

All i can say bring it on its look fantastic acording to beta gameplay on ytube videos i cant stop watching them

[Terror_K]

Vegos wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Again with the "making optional game modes is resources wasted" argument.  Didn't this get dubunked well over 20 pages back?  It takes VERY little time to program in script triggers that automate dialog choices and just apply the script to the game.

I think you use the word "debunked" pretty liberally.

I think these people who say how quick and easy it is haven't done programming themselves. Aside from the fact that one of the devs stated it was still getting tweaked now, they have to analyse the whole game and tweak it, including all the variations, and decide how everything is set for each mode. Then there's testing and QA too, because we woudn't want these game modes to result in accidental tags that end up with an error whereby a decision that should be present is cut out of the game entirely because it was flagged as being skipped even on "full decisions" mode or something like that (remember what happened when flags didn't set properly with Conrad Vener in ME1).

Anybody who's actually done programming and worked on building a system, even a simple one, should know that it really isn't quite as simple as, "an afternoon's worth of coding and that's it."

Modifié par Terror_K, 09 novembre 2011 - 04:28 .

[ElitePinecone]

Terror_K wrote...

Vegos wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Again with the "making optional game modes is resources wasted" argument.  Didn't this get dubunked well over 20 pages back?  It takes VERY little time to program in script triggers that automate dialog choices and just apply the script to the game.

I think you use the word "debunked" pretty liberally.

I think these people who say how quick and easy it is haven't done programming themselves. Aside from the fact that one of the devs stated it was still getting tweaked now, they have to analyse the whole game and tweak it, including all the variations, and decide how everything is set for each mode. Then there's testing and QA too, because we woudn't want these game modes to result in accidental tags that end up with an error whereby a decision that should be present is cut out of the game entirely because it was flagged as being skipped even on "full decisions" mode or something like that (remember what happened when flags didn't set properly with Conrad Vener in ME1).

Anybody who's actually done programming and worked on building a system, even a simple one, should know that it really isn't quite as simple as, "an afternoon's worth of coding and that's it."

Sure. But this doesn't use any art assets, any of the voiceover budget, any of the AI programming (save for adjusting the difficulty), any music, sound effects, writing or cinematics. Dialogue already contains embedded paragon and renegade tags and Bioware's telemetry already shows that each dialogue option has a unique ID. 

There'd need to be tweaking and testing, obviously, but automating the progression of cutscenes isn't an overly demanding task. Possibly not an afternoon's work, but not months either. 

It's a miniscule gameplay system in compaison to the rest of the game, and it has a pretty obvious (and arguably worthy) goal of making Mass Effect 3 less intimidating to people who have never played it, or easier for people who are on repeat playthroughs. 

What could the programming team do with those extra few zots if they hadn't done this? Buggered if I know. But not much - and clearly, Bioware thinks that giving players gameplay options is a good thing. It's why we have things like difficulty levels, after all. 

You might strongly disagree with the entire mindset behind it - namely, making the game playable for people who aren't you or people like you - but Bioware are going to do it because it means more people can play their game. 

Also, remember that choosing a mode doesn't make it permanent for that playthrough. It's entirely flexible - switching from automatic and manual conversations is done in the options menu, ditto with difficulty. 

[Vegos]

ElitePinecone wrote...
but automating the progression of cutscenes isn't an overly demanding task.

How.

Do.

You.

Know.

That?

[ElitePinecone]

Vegos wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...
but automating the progression of cutscenes isn't an overly demanding task.

How.

Do.

You.

Know.

That?

Compared to desgining level art or animating an Atlas?

Or renndering a cutscene, paying voice actors, composing music? 

We'll never know the zots involved, but I can guarantee that automating conversations is a tiny fraction of the budget. 

[Vegos]

ElitePinecone wrote...

We'll never know the zots involved, but I can guarantee that automating conversations is a tiny fraction of the budget. 

How does that translate into how demanding it is?

For someone who likes reminding people of what they don't know, you seem pretty damn sure of something I am pretty damn sure you don't know.

Modifié par Vegos, 09 novembre 2011 - 06:09 .

[ElitePinecone]

Vegos wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

We'll never know the zots involved, but I can guarantee that automating conversations is a tiny fraction of the budget. 

How does that translate into how demanding it is?

For someone who likes reminding people of what they don't know, you seem pretty damn sure of something I am pretty damn sure you don't know.

Relative inference. The argument that implementing these preset options mean Bioware would scrap significant amounts of other content is specious. 

And besides, my suggestion that it's not demanding on resources is as valid an opinion as the person who says it's taking precious zots away from other things. 

We're both just twirling away in a cosmic forum dance of irrelevance, propelled by ignorance and seething self-righteousness. No? 

Nobody has a clue whether Action mode will streamline game content or decision-making either. Which, if I'm not mistaken, has been the contentious issue for the past fifty-odd pages. 

[Vegos]

ElitePinecone wrote...

We're both just twirling away in a cosmic forum dance of irrelevance, propelled by ignorance and seething self-righteousness. No?

That we are, that we are.

[The Sapien]

Vegos wrote...

www.destructoid.com/mass-effect-2-player-choice-statistics-are-surprising-188362.phtml

pc.ign.com/articles/111/1118657p1.html

Avg completion time, 33 hours.

All my playthroughs took a good 50, for example. So yes, seems people really just rushed through.

Hmmm, those stats don't mean a whole lot without more info. An update would also be nice for the latest stats.
Do they count "player" as each registerd owner with multiple play throughs averaged or is each play through counted as a "player"? Am I 50 players or just one averaged? How do they count all the times I restarted when just testing new chargens or when I tested combat or for whatever reason had favorite saved points to return to? What about when we intentionally test things like how many companions can die?
Still, it does seem to point at the idea that most people went with what looked the default settings; a male soldier. However, it's unfair to blame the players when BioWare set the menus up this way. We'd need a randomized menu to remove bias and then see the results again before making assumptions about the population.

[The Sapien]

Terror_K wrote...

See, you're all kind of proving my point. We forumites try different classes and different builds. The average gamer out there probably just chooses the simplest and most suited to sticking with weapons almost all the time, then blasts through the game once before trading it in for the next action game out.

Until BioWare does a study with a randomized menu system, the results are biased.
Male is always the first option. Soldier is always the first option. Many players see those as the default or for whatever reason just try the first options first.
Side note, could also be the names of the classes, like adept just doesn't sound as cool as soldier unless you make the connection in your mind that they are really like jedi, for example.

[Someone With Mass]

What says that the average Mass Effect player isn't trying out the other classes at one point, anyway?

[The Sapien]

Someone With Mass wrote...

What says that the average Mass Effect player isn't trying out the other classes at one point, anyway?

Soldier got 65%, but we don't know what they counted. Was it just your first playthrough? Did replaying the game count as much as someone else just playing once? Etc? I dunno. But 65% is still alot if we slice it any of these ways. Because, to go with your question about trying out other classes, you have to apply that to people who switchd INTO playing soldier class from other classes, as well. So you might get more numbers for each of the other classes, but you'll also get more numbers for the soldier class!

[biojekt]

 This news is horrifically scary.  Right now I can't comprehend how action mode would work without making dialogue choices primarily superficial.  I guess it's possible that if your spoke to an npc who would normally give you an item if you made the right dialogue choices would now automatically give you the item.  But see action mode raises a lot of other questions.  Such as what ending would you get?  To be honest both action mode and story mode sound pointless.  Retarded is probably the best word.  It's the equivalent of turning on story mode for call of duty 3 where every bullet fired homes in on all enemies so that you don't have to go through the pain of aiming.  

I truly worry that me3 will be more like dragon age 2.  You'll have dialogue trees, but the trees will only effect how a line is delivered instead it having any consequence.  

Modifié par biojekt, 07 janvier 2012 - 10:05 .

[biojekt]

biojekt wrote...

 This news is horrifically scary.  Right now I can't comprehend how action mode would work without making dialogue choices primarily superficial.  I guess it's possible that if your spoke to an npc who would normally give you an item if you made the right dialogue choices would now automatically give you the item.  But see action mode raises a lot of other questions.  Such as what ending would you get?  To be honest both action mode and story mode sound pointless.  Retarded is probably the best word.  It's the equivalent of turning on story mode for call of duty 3 where every bullet fired homes in on all enemies so that you don't have to go through the pain of aiming.  

I truly worry that me3 will be more like dragon age 2.  You'll have dialogue trees, but the trees will only effect how a line is delivered instead of having any consequence.  And yes Dragon Age 2 bored me too tears.  It amazes me how much bioware seems to be selling out for maximum profits by attempting to cature to the maximum number of people.  People play mass effect because it's mass effect.  If they wanted call of duty or gears I war they would play gears of war.  They aren't just suddenly going to play mass effect now that an option exists that essentially dumbs down the game.  

[Abraham_uk]

Role play for the win! Why would you want to choose stripped down versions of Mass Effect 3?