101103 réponses à ce sujet

[GuardianAngel470]

Atrocity wrote...

No need to turn into a f.cking a..hole mate.

Hehe...

[Goodwood]

Atrocity wrote...

g_bassi13 wrote...

Like I said on the last page, 'twas a lazy port. They could have optimized it for PC standards.

That's a dangerous sentence right there. As much as I am pro PC Master Race, it can result in a..holiness of celestial proportions. As in game makers who boast their game can't be run smoothly with max settings on any known computer. That's just... internet-ish. 

But in all seriousness I agree, there are differences between consoles and PC and it's not platformisism to aknowledge them.

Nice Yahtzee reference there.

That said, I personally do support developers (at least the independent or semi-indepenedent ones) that try to advance the technology behind certain genres of video games (the term often used is "future-proof"). 1C Maddox Games did that for the flight simulator IL-2: Cliffs of Dover and though it was quite buggy when released (due actually to UbiSoft forcing it out early), the sim is continually updated by the devs and, on a high-end computer, looks absolutely gorgeous. We're talking graphical touches that makes M$ Flight Simulator X look like FS '98.

[g_bassi13]

Atrocity wrote...

g_bassi13 wrote...

Like I said on the last page, 'twas a lazy port. They could have optimized it for PC standards.

That's a dangerous sentence right there. As much as I am pro PC Master Race, it can result in a..holiness of celestial proportions. As in game makers who boast their game can't be run smoothly with max settings on any known computer. That's just... internet-ish. 

But in all seriousness I agree, there are differences between consoles and PC and it's not platformisism to aknowledge them.

By optimize, I didn't mean max out. But I think you know that, lol.

Atrocity wrote...

edit. I dislike the fact they turned ME3 into a one long tube-run shooter. And all the decisions they made to make it so.

To go back to square one where this discussion started... Yeah, exactly this.

[Atrocity]

Goodwood wrote...

Atrocity wrote...

That's a dangerous sentence right there. As much as I am pro PC Master Race, it can result in a..holiness of celestial proportions. As in game makers who boast their game can't be run smoothly with max settings on any known computer. That's just... internet-ish. 

But in all seriousness I agree, there are differences between consoles and PC and it's not platformisism to aknowledge them.

Nice Yahtzee reference there.

That said, I personally do support developers (at least the independent or semi-indepenedent ones) that try to advance the technology behind certain genres of video games (the term often used is "future-proof"). 1C Maddox Games did that for the flight simulator IL-2: Cliffs of Dover and though it was quite buggy when released (due actually to UbiSoft forcing it out early), the sim is continually updated by the devs and, on a high-end computer, looks absolutely gorgeous. We're talking graphical touches that makes M$ Flight Simulator X look like FS '98.

A what reference? 

And it's a matter of the motivation behind making your game unplayable elitist future-proof. I just don't see that much to gain if the game is virtually unplayable with 99% of the computers when it first comes out. Though that does not fall under the category future-proof, I guess. 

[Atrocity]

g_bassi13 wrote...

Atrocity wrote...

edit. I dislike the fact they turned ME3 into a one long tube-run shooter. And all the decisions they made to make it so.

To go back to square one where this discussion started... Yeah, exactly this.

For me, ME2 had a good balance. I don't like the battle system in ME that much, never have, so I was glad they changed that (not so glad when they nerfed biotics though). A perfect combination would have been ME1 environmental freeness, with ME2 shooter gameplay. But since it is not a perfect world, ME2 was pretty good and close enough for that.

I get that with full blown war against the Reapers, Shep probably wouldn't want to watch asari strippers shake their asses in some bar, but they could at least given me the illusion of freedom. Like holstering 

[GuardianAngel470]

Atrocity wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Atrocity wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Logic dictates that the decision to replace completely functional sprint animations with less functional ones and cutting holstering and walking animations likely follow from the same, reasonable cause: memory/RAM limitations.

However, logic does not dictate, explain or even hint why a decent sprint and general battle fuctions had to be replaced at all. They had them already working pretty well on ME2, which ran just fine to my understanding on consoles. 

I literally answered that question in the post you just quoted. It's right there, I've now bolded it for you.

No need to turn into a f.cking a..hole mate.
And as I said, they already had working animations. ME3 has longer fights, and that's the only real difference I can see to ME2. Poor reason to replace good mechanics imho.

edit. I dislike the fact they turned ME3 into a one long tube-run shooter. And all the decisions they made to make it so.

Let me try to explain. When a program wants to do ANYTHING, it has to reserve space in memory/RAM for information the processors will need to complete a task. In console's case, it needs to read information from the disk and temporarily store it in memory/RAM where the CPU will look for it. Frequently used information tends to stay in the memory/RAM.

In this case, that frequently used information is the animations for Shepard and Co. It includes roll animations for all four directions, heavy melee, run, sprint, melee from cover, and other necessary information. If this information was simply stored on the disc, the extremely limited read speed of a standard DVD or Hard Drive would make snap motions, like quickly rolling out of the way of a Brute, next to impossible. There would be a significant delay that would be like experiencing internet lag during a multiplayer match.

As I pointed out, consoles only have 512MB of RAM TOTAL. A standard gaming computer by comparison has about 5GB (4 for the system and 1 for the graphics card). My computer has 17.792GB of RAM, but I'm planning on using it as a gaming server (using Remote Desktop) so I need the extra RAM.

By Bioware's post on the animations issue on the General Discussion Forums pre-release (can't find the link) the holster and walk animations totalled to around 5MB. It's not much, but put into the context of a console it's significant. It's approximately 0.97% of the total RAM available.

By comparison, on a standard gaming PC that's about .097% of total system RAM.

Now to explain why Bioware probably couldn't spare the RAM, we need to know that all textures in a video game pass through graphics RAM, which in the case of consoles is shared with the CPU. That means that every texture in the entire area you're in is also passing through RAM. The new animations are in RAM, enemy AI programming is in RAM, squad AI is in RAM, physics is in RAM, and a whole host of other things.

Everything the CPU or GPU (graphics card) touches is passed through RAM at some point.

So 5MB may not seem like a lot but when it's only real purpose is to provide players with yet another choice that ultimately serves no purpose, it's easy to see why it was cut.

[Tyion133]

Atrocity wrote...

For me, ME2 had a good balance. I don't like the battle system in ME that much, never have, so I was glad they changed that (not so glad when they nerfed biotics though). A perfect combination would have been ME1 environmental freeness, with ME2 shooter gameplay. But since it is not a perfect world, ME2 was pretty good and close enough for that.

I get that with full blown war against the Reapers, Shep probably wouldn't want to watch asari strippers shake their asses in some bar, but they could at least given me the illusion of freedom. Like holstering 

Or swords!

[toffeetrooper]

*sneaks back in*

hey all, i see the pace has picked up a bit since yesterday.

[Atrocity]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
*snip*

Trust me, I know that. I am fully, utterly, truly, aware of those facts. 

I understand they had to replace working animations and mechanics, because consoles can't handle the slight graphic upgrade (or at least to me it seems very slight if there at all, then again, I play on PC and am not bound by console limitations) combined together with the tube-shooty-shootness of the game. And that same shooty-shootness demands a combat roll (unless you're Krogan, Turian, or Batarian).

I disagree with them going down that path at all. They had a working format, working mechanics and all the working worked on consoles too with ME2. I don't like it they turned ME3 into a MW2. I like even less that they dumbed down the PC version. And I still don't think holstering would've been that demanding, but eh, small things combined create big things and all.

[Atrocity]

And now I'll have to take doggie out for a walk, but never despair, I'll be back.

[g_bassi13]

 

Atrocity wrote...

And it's a matter of the motivation behind making your game unplayable elitist future-proof. I just don't see that much to gain if the game is virtually unplayable with 99% of the computers when it first comes out. Though that does not fall under the category future-proof, I guess. 

  
They could do a better job with efficiency though. It's not a matter of making a game unplayable at all. It's partially the opposite of what I'm saying. Just saying that they should recognize that for PC they have the oppurtunity to play to some different strengths. That it could use more than a slap-dab programming language transfer.

Atrocity wrote...

g_bassi13 wrote...

Atrocity wrote...

edit. I dislike the fact they turned ME3 into a one long tube-run shooter. And all the decisions they made to make it so.

To go back to square one where this discussion started... Yeah, exactly this.

For me, ME2 had a good balance. I don't like the battle system in ME that much, never have, so I was glad they changed that (not so glad when they nerfed biotics though). A perfect combination would have been ME1 environmental freeness, with ME2 shooter gameplay. But since it is not a perfect world, ME2 was pretty good and close enough for that.

I get that with full blown war against the Reapers, Shep probably wouldn't want to watch asari strippers shake their asses in some bar, but they could at least given me the illusion of freedom. Like holstering 

Hey, the game still has you spending all that time doing intergalactic UPS deliveries, so the people that made it themselves can't be imagining that the reaper threat is all that big or immediate, lol.

But I was hoping for the same thing you were with this game. Was thinking that they it would take the best of both worlds and build on it. Initial impressions seemed to indicate that they did, but as the game wore on, it certainly didn't feel that way.

I certainly miss the openness and exploration of ME1, along with it's epic sense of storytelling. And I miss ME2's intricate sidestories and general sense of flavour. There was always something to do in those games. With ME3 it's a lot more shoot... and then shoot some more.

edit: also only one page away from 4,000.

Modifié par g_bassi13, 20 mai 2012 - 10:04 .

[Atrocity]

g_bassi13 wrote...

I certainly miss the openness and exploration of ME1, along with it's epic sense of storytelling. And I miss ME2's intricate sidestories and general sense of flavour. There was always something to do in those games. With ME3 it's a lot more shoot... and then shoot some more.

edit: also only one page away from 4,000.

I am still dumbstruck they chose to go all gun-ho with ME3 the way they did. The strength of the series never lied in the shooting, and as a plain shooter ME3 is average at best, so that's pretty much failing to please the evangelist fans and new gamers both.  I won't go as far as to say it made ME3 a bad game, since I did enjoy it until the last 10 minutes (though in all honesty I'm not anymore sure how much of that enjoyment was because of the build up from the previous games), but it's certainly nothing special.

Bulletstorm is a good tube-run shooter. It is entertaining, and just plain shooting pretty much throughout the game, with only nominal breaks between the carnage. It was made to be an entertaining shooter, so they priorised the gameplay mechanics and graphics, leaving everything else out. Well, everything but the awesome, awesome, sweet and funny as hell dialogue. 

I don't get the same goal-orientedness from ME3. It is painfully clear it tried to have it both ways, but it just didn't work. That being said, the battle sequences are much smoother than in ME2. But then again, they'd have to be. 

[Lestatman]

g_bassi13 wrote...

Hey, the game still has you spending all that time doing intergalactic UPS deliveries, so the people that made it themselves can't be imagining that the reaper threat is all that big or immediate, lol.

But I was hoping for the same thing you were with this game. Was thinking that they it would take the best of both worlds and build on it. Initial impressions seemed to indicate that they did, but as the game wore on, it certainly didn't feel that way.

I certainly miss the openness and exploration of ME1, along with it's epic sense of storytelling. And I miss ME2's intricate sidestories and general sense of flavour. There was always something to do in those games. With ME3 it's a lot more shoot... and then shoot some more.

I did find it strange that they rush u off Earth but yet you can run about the Citadel taking ur time, eavesdropping on ppl and even stopping for a drink while all the time Earth is under attack.

Modifié par Lestatman, 20 mai 2012 - 10:47 .

[Goodwood]

Atrocity, you like Bulletstorm?!

HIGH-FIVEZ!

Yes, that one was a very entertaining shooter, even if the artistic aesthetic was a bit too Gears of War-ish for my taste (then again, both game worlds are the product of the imagination of the same art director), but the worlds are nice and fun and lots of interesting novelty kills and Jennifer Hale...

*gush*

Yeah, I like that game.

[GroverA125]

happy 3,999/4,000 pages my friends, hopefully, we'll not need to make it to 5,000 pages.

If only Bioware would listen to us... still a man can dream...

[Goodwood]

GroverA125 wrote...

happy 3,999/4,000 pages my friends, hopefully, we'll not need to make it to 5,000 pages.

If only Bioware would listen to us... still a man can dream...

At this point, unless the EC turns out to be a ginormous nugget of electrum-plated platinum or the threadnought explodes in a massive flame war, then we'll still be here for page five thousand. That said, the rEApers do seem to have cocked one ear in our direction, even if it's still stuffed with PR cotton...

[Atrocity]

Goodwood wrote...

Atrocity, you like Bulletstorm?!

HIGH-FIVEZ!

Yes, that one was a very entertaining shooter, even if the artistic aesthetic was a bit too Gears of War-ish for my taste (then again, both game worlds are the product of the imagination of the same art director), but the worlds are nice and fun and lots of interesting novelty kills and Jennifer Hale...

*gush*

Yeah, I like that game.

Hell yeah, the best shooter experience of my life. Steve did awesome job as Grayson. Seriously, I can't think of any other shooter game with as personal and loveable main character. I really had no opinion on the surroundings, other than the graphs were adequate. Too busy killing things, and listening to elevator talk, you know? 

That game got me seriously depressed about the Xmen though. Since, as probably everyone knows, Steve does pretty much all Wolverine VG voice acting, thus why Grayson Hunt looks like Wolverine, and he is the best imho for the job. So, the game got me thinking about X-Mern Origin: Wolverine. The movie. And then I got depressed again. 

[mage110011]

Goodwood wrote...

GroverA125 wrote...

happy 3,999/4,000 pages my friends, hopefully, we'll not need to make it to 5,000 pages.

If only Bioware would listen to us... still a man can dream...

At this point, unless the EC turns out to be a ginormous nugget of electrum-plated platinum or the threadnought explodes in a massive flame war, then we'll still be here for page five thousand. That said, the rEApers do seem to have cocked one ear in our direction, even if it's still stuffed with PR cotton...

some one needs to bake a cake

[evisneffo]

Hah.

One problem though -- turns out s/he couldn't save the galaxy after all. So there's no excuse for not being able to dance. Sorry Shepard. Haha.

Goodwood wrote...

Yes, that one was a very entertaining shooter, even if the artistic aesthetic was a bit too Gears of War-ish for my taste (then again, both game worlds are the product of the imagination of the same art director), but the worlds are nice and fun and lots of interesting novelty kills and Jennifer Hale...

Did someone say Jennifer Hale?

This name causes my brain to stop working.

Must investigate this game. Now. *mutters like a crazy person*

[Atrocity]

@evisneffo
Yup, Hale and Blum are both in that game ^^

[Tyion133]

evisneffo wrote...

Hah.

One problem though -- turns out s/he couldn't save the galaxy after all. So there's no excuse for not being able to dance. Sorry Shepard. Haha.

The Shep shuffle does work as a dance though...

[SystemUser]

GroverA125 wrote...

happy 3,999/4,000 pages my friends, hopefully, we'll not need to make it to 5,000 pages.

If only Bioware would listen to us... still a man can dream...

I think that will happen if the EC isn't good enough.

[Goodwood]

evisneffo wrote...

Goodwood wrote...

Yes, that one was a very entertaining shooter, even if the artistic aesthetic was a bit too Gears of War-ish for my taste (then again, both game worlds are the product of the imagination of the same art director), but the worlds are nice and fun and lots of interesting novelty kills and Jennifer Hale...

Did someone say Jennifer Hale?

This name causes my brain to stop working.

Must investigate this game. Now. *mutters like a crazy person*

Bwahahahahaha.

Yeah, it's a pretty fun game with lots of comedy gold amindst flying bad-guy guts and environments that routinely blow up in spectacular fashion. Hale's character isn't your typical badass action girl either, she's got some daddy issues too! Oh, and she lactates a steady stream of penis envy...

Definitely a departure from her performances as Commander Shepard.

[g_bassi13]

Atrocity wrote...

g_bassi13 wrote...

I certainly miss the openness and exploration of ME1, along with it's epic sense of storytelling. And I miss ME2's intricate sidestories and general sense of flavour. There was always something to do in those games. With ME3 it's a lot more shoot... and then shoot some more.

edit: also only one page away from 4,000.

I am still dumbstruck they chose to go all gun-ho with ME3 the way they did. The strength of the series never lied in the shooting, and as a plain shooter ME3 is average at best, so that's pretty much failing to please the evangelist fans and new gamers both.  I won't go as far as to say it made ME3 a bad game, since I did enjoy it until the last 10 minutes (though in all honesty I'm not anymore sure how much of that enjoyment was because of the build up from the previous games), but it's certainly nothing special.

Bulletstorm is a good tube-run shooter. It is entertaining, and just plain shooting pretty much throughout the game, with only nominal breaks between the carnage. It was made to be an entertaining shooter, so they priorised the gameplay mechanics and graphics, leaving everything else out. Well, everything but the awesome, awesome, sweet and funny as hell dialogue. 

I don't get the same goal-orientedness from ME3. It is painfully clear it tried to have it both ways, but it just didn't work. That being said, the battle sequences are much smoother than in ME2. But then again, they'd have to be. 

Agreed. Bad is certainly a strong word that I wouldn't use to describe it as an indivdual game, but as a part of the Mass Effect series and being what was supposed to be the finale, it is most certainly be disappointing. I was underwhelmed during my first and only playthrough, but it's not like it didn't have it's enjoyments. It's too bad the game was designed for only one playthrough though. Would still use the word hate to describe my personal feelings towards it, lol. Expectations and the such.

The combat mechanics themselves were definitely improved. The action sequences were easier though. And I don't know if the end result of even that was all too satisfying. Not worse though, for sure. Both better than ME1 in that regard, but I still don't like the idea of adding limited ammo (thermal clips, whatever lol) to the guns.

[g_bassi13]

On the topic of Jennifer Hale, I thought her voice acting in the game was pretty amazing. When I first heard her voice in ME1 coming out of Shepard's mouth, it honestly seemed a bit off. But as the game went on, it just seemed so fitting, because of the aforementioned amazing voice acting.

I was planning to originally do a separate playthrough with a male Shepard (before actually playing ME3 and losing interest in the series), but I'm not sure I could play as Shepard without her voice. Would miss it, lol.