81 réponses à ce sujet

[Mcfly616]

 

 

Honestly, the only half-baked level design I saw was in ME1 where crates were lazily strewn about in a feeble attempt to differentiate the three kinds of prefab bases and enemies stood like idiots out in the open. And by some do you mean all? Little to no combat in ME1 took place outside, and most of the bits that did were usually sequestered to some kind of basin.

 

In my opinion, sniper rifles were one of ME2's more glaring improvements. Enemies now have a chance to react to your shots. No longer are they simply fishes in barrels that can be snuffed out without slightest of skill, but they force the player to adapt to their movements. Whether you're fighting ranged battles on the Dantius towers or dealing within the medium quarters of Jack's prison, the sniper is challenged, but still useful.

 

 Really, hmm I must be the only person that noticed all of those crates set up deliberately for cover in the imminent shoot-out to come in ME2. You could predict the moment a firefight was going to start based on the level design. Yeah, crates were lazily strewn about in ME1. But the chaos of that laziness looks a lot better than the predictability of the shooting gallery design in ME2. Everything is designed around the cover mechanic, which is sad because the cover mechanic isn't too good in that game. It's rather clunky to say the least. From the cover that pops up in the prison during the Jack recruitment mission, to the layout of the Suicide Mission. It doesn't seem natural at all.

 

I literally stated the rifles were an improvement. I said they were awesome. They felt great. I said the level design hindered their potential. Enemies are more a fish in the barrel than they ever were. There's no skill involved. There's zero weapon sway. And enemies are right down your sights everytime. They are right in front of you. 

 

 

 

 

 

You continue to rationalize ME2s linearity with the trade off of improved graphics and a more entertaining experience. That latter being a bit subjective. Open world games and less linear rpgs have improved their graphics and created more entertaining experiences on successive interactions without having to resort to making the game any less open than its predecessor

[RoboticWater]

 Really, hmm I must be the only person that notice all of those crates set up deliberately for cover in the imminent shoot-out. You could predict the moment a firefight was going to start based the level design. Yeah, crates were lazily strewn about in ME1. But the chaos of that laziness looks a lot better than the predictability of the shooting gallery design in ME2. Everything is designed around the cover mechanic, which is sad because the cover mechanic isn't too good on that game. It's rather clunky to say the least. From the cover that goes vertical in the prison during the Jack recruitment mission, to the layout of the Suicide Mission. 

 

I literally stated the rifles were an improvement. I said they were awesome. They felt great. I said the level design hindered their potential. Enemies are more a fish in the barrel than they ever were. There's no skill involved. There's zero weapon sway. And enemies are right down your sights everytime. They are right in front of you. 

Clunkier than ME1? I don't even want to imagine such a hell. Even sprinting felt awkward.

 

In theory randomness would reduce the ME1's predictability, but in practice ME1's AI simply wasn't smart enough to take advantage of any of it. In both games the battles will turn out almost exactly the same each time, ME2 just looks and feels better while doing it.

 

A lot of things in ME1 work in theory. In theory open areas facilitate experimentation. In theory exploration can be fun. In practice it can lead to clunky controls, blatantly idiotic AI, uninspired level design, and utterly hollow game play. in practice it's impractical. I too wish that ME2 was the perfect game with just the right balance of open levels, focused action, smooth mechanics, and detailed environments. Unfortunately, the reality of game development and technical limitations doesn't allow all that to happen. BioWare went small, and it payed off. ME3's multiplayer shouldn't have worked, but BioWare's focus on the essentials allowed it to be as successful as it was.

 

I said that ME2's level design enhanced sniper rifles. There were plenty of levels that let you shoot targets at range. Not football fields away, but enough that a scope was required for a decent shot. And yes, there are plenty of levels where you're much closer, but not this absurdly tiny distance you seem to remember.

 

BioWare is now in a comfortable position where they can expand upon their core mechanics. This is good. This is what you want. This is what I want too, but I don't think BioWare could've gotten here without ME2's incredibly successful gameplay modifications.

[RoboticWater]

 You continue to rationalize ME2s linearity with the trade off of improved graphics and a more entertaining experience. That latter being a bit subjective. Open world games and less linear rpgs have improved their graphics and created more entertaining experiences on successive interactions without having to resort to making the game any less open than its predecessor

And you continue to ignore the realities of game development. I get it, we're both heavily opinionated people who need to be right about everything (which I totally am btw). Obviously the latter is a bit subjective, but the numbers and reviews back my side. Most people thought ME2 played better. There's a reason for that.

 

The only RPG shooter with half decent shooting mechanics I can think of is Far Cry 3 (if you can call it an RPG), and Far Cry 3 had access to a much more powerful engine, all of Ubisoft's resources (more than twice as many employees), didn't need to balance 6 different classes, and didn't have a choice driven story to deal with.

[Diefenbaker]

I've said this in another thread but please add cities to explore, BIG cities. It's a really important part of this series to show the player how far other space-faring civilizations have come. Planet exploration doesn't automatically just mean empty deserts and large plains with a few caves and abandoned research stations.

[SNascimento]

A lot of things in ME1 work in theory. In theory open areas facilitate experimentation. In theory exploration can be fun. In practice it can lead to clunky controls, blatantly idiotic AI, uninspired level design, and utterly hollow game play.

I believe you nailed it here. It's funny because I was thinking the exact same thing yesterday while I was replaying Noveria. If I talked about the mission it sounds very good. Yet in practice the mechinics of Mass Effect, its level design and its lackluster artstyle make it an ok mission at best. It looks great on paper, but the game isn't able to make realize it in its full potential, not even close. And that's true for almost every aspect of ME1. 

But one thing that I do noticed is that for many people the simple idea is enough. It doesn't matter that sniping a guy from a mountain in ME1 had no good game mechanics put behind them. Enemies would just stay there in the open in get shot at. they would show no intelligent reaction, there was no level design to support neither the enemies nor the player... but the simple fact you were sniping a guy from a mountain make it better than any other sniper gameplay in other TPS that have a more linear level design, no matter how developer their gameplay is. 

But I'm gladly Bioware took the right direction with ME2 and then ME3, a direction that without a doubt they will keep following in NME.
 

 

ME3's multiplayer shouldn't have worked, but BioWare's focus on the essentials allowed it to be as successful as it was.

 

Now I disagree completely. ME3's multiplayer was bound to be great from the day ME2 was launched. I saw that, and Bioware saw that. 

[goishen]

One thing that they could do, however, is to make the sniper rifle double or triple zoomable.  Lemme give you an example.  If you have something that's at 100m or less, you have to zoom in once.  If you have something at say, 101-500m you have to zoom in twice with some sway.  If you have something at 501-1000m you have to zoom in three times, with a lot of sway.

[Dr. Rush]

Its all about level design and scale. The level designers need to be able to make vast, open worlds, that are appropriate for single-player games. Too often, the scale of open world games become too much like MMOs. The level designers and devs need to find that sweet spot that makes the perfect single-player-open-world kind of game. I hope they can pull it off in ME4. 

[fyz306903]

A problem I have with this insistence on exploration, (similar problem in zelda wii u) is that I'm worried that it'll affect a story. Don't get me wrong, I don't like linear corridors or 'interactive movies' but I also hate games where you're just plonked in the middle of nowhere with just the words: look for...stuff. I want the exploration to have proper context with a gripping plot and memorable characters, not 45 hours of play time where 25 hours was spent walking from A to B. I'm sure Bioware (and Nintendo) will pull this off, but I don't want the plot to suffer. I don't like how all games seem to need the 'seamless open world' treatment. It's fun exploring, but it also (with some OW games) also means a lot of pointless side quests and a lot of looking at your characters back/car/space ship silently for long periods of time.

[Linkenski]

You can never overdue planetary exploration.

Be careful what you wish for.

[RVallant]

And you continue to ignore the realities of game development. I get it, we're both heavily opinionated people who need to be right about everything (which I totally am btw). Obviously the latter is a bit subjective, but the numbers and reviews back my side. Most people thought ME2 played better. There's a reason for that.

 

The only RPG shooter with half decent shooting mechanics I can think of is Far Cry 3 (if you can call it an RPG), and Far Cry 3 had access to a much more powerful engine, all of Ubisoft's resources (more than twice as many employees), didn't need to balance 6 different classes, and didn't have a choice driven story to deal with.

 

RPG-Shooter (ME1) vs Shooter-RPG (ME2)

 

Most RPG-Shooters tend to get hit critically and by gamers because, at risk of sounding extremely condescending - they're thick.

 

People can't 'comprehend' the mechanics of an RPG-Shooter - look at the reviews for Alpha Protocol - a game based around RPG-shooting mechanics (i.e. chance to hit =/= won't land exactly where you point the cursor), furthermore if we move over to turn-based games; look at review disparity for Vandal Hearts (generally favourable), which was turn-based one unit moved in order compared to Vandal Hearts 2 (Negative reviews), which was turn-based TWO units move simultaneously in order - something people can't work out even today, when it is REALLY simple a pre-schooler should be able to figure it out.  

 

A lot of the complaints for ME1 seem to be around the shooting-mechanics. A lot of the praise for ME2 was... around the shooting mechanics. RPG-wise ME2 sacrifices a lot in comparison to ME1, squad-dialogue in particular, yet it tightens up everything else. Not saying ME1 > ME2 or anything like that, because they both have their strengths and weaknesses just when it comes to the mass market, of course ME2 is going to win that round when you consider the audience out there aren't exactly high-brow people.

 

Anyway, apologises for presenting that viewpoint, but I think it's worth pointing out. Mass market = needs things to be trivial and easy, that's why you have EA going on record saying they're going to make all their new projects 'faceroll easy' because gamers find their games too hard... =/

[Malanek]

RPG-Shooter (ME1) vs Shooter-RPG (ME2)

 

Most RPG-Shooters tend to get hit critically and by gamers because, at risk of sounding extremely condescending - they're thick.

 

People can't 'comprehend' the mechanics of an RPG-Shooter - look at the reviews for Alpha Protocol - a game based around RPG-shooting mechanics (i.e. chance to hit =/= won't land exactly where you point the cursor), furthermore if we move over to turn-based games; look at review disparity for Vandal Hearts (generally favourable), which was turn-based one unit moved in order compared to Vandal Hearts 2 (Negative reviews), which was turn-based TWO units move simultaneously in order - something people can't work out even today, when it is REALLY simple a pre-schooler should be able to figure it out.  

 

A lot of the complaints for ME1 seem to be around the shooting-mechanics. A lot of the praise for ME2 was... around the shooting mechanics. RPG-wise ME2 sacrifices a lot in comparison to ME1, squad-dialogue in particular, yet it tightens up everything else. Not saying ME1 > ME2 or anything like that, because they both have their strengths and weaknesses just when it comes to the mass market, of course ME2 is going to win that round when you consider the audience out there aren't exactly high-brow people.

 

Anyway, apologises for presenting that viewpoint, but I think it's worth pointing out. Mass market = needs things to be trivial and easy, that's why you have EA going on record saying they're going to make all their new projects 'faceroll easy' because gamers find their games too hard... =/

ME1 was as easy as ME2 to learn and easier to play. As soon as you get immunity or barrier and any CC the game becomes trivial, even on insanity. EA wants games easier to learn, not things that you will faceroll your way through.

[StealthGamer92]

ME1 was as easy as ME2 to learn and easier to play. As soon as you get immunity or barrier and any CC the game becomes trivial, even on insanity. EA wants games easier to learn, not things that you will faceroll your way through.

 

Not with my Infiltrator it wasn't. I never did beat it on Insanity even though I started at lvl 60 with the best gear(I even used a glitch to give him Collusus heavy armor the last 5 attempts) in the game. I gave up on it because I never saved and on Therum I kept getting killed by the collosus you have to fight on foot. Even with Ash and Wrex set up as tanks we would always die followed by hearing Joker saying "I'm getting some strange readings ahead Comander." I know it was my fault for not saveing but still.

[KaiserShep]

Cheater tip: If you squeeze the Mako through that little passageway and drive it all the way up to the entrance of the ruins, the geth that are waiting for you at the tunnel entrance will not be hostile. The troopers along the way will shoot at you, but not these guys. They'll just sit there and do nothing while you dispose of them.

[StealthGamer92]

Cheater tip: If you squeeze the Mako through that little passageway and drive it all the way up to the entrance of the ruins, the geth that are waiting for you at the tunnel entrance will not be hostile. The troopers along the way will shoot at you, but not these guys. They'll just sit there and do nothing while you dispose of them.

 

I could never squeeze through though. Saw a video of it though. And to clarrify I only ever cheat if it's a "just for fun" playthrough or a situation like above.

[KaiserShep]

Gotcha. Just thought I'd throw that out there. In any case, yeah, those geth that are waiting for you up there are a pain in the ass, even on normal. Therum's final stretch is basically a killing field with those stupid geth and that krogan battlemaster when starting with a new Shepard.

[StealthGamer92]

Speaking of cheats does anybody remember the good 'ol days when games had cheats built in? Like 007, and Turok had Invincability, unlock all gun's, and Unlimeted ammo if you knew the right input. I loved useing the Turok "Shooting Gallery" cheat to be able to shoot thing's walking across the press Start screen.

[RoboticWater]

RPG-Shooter (ME1) vs Shooter-RPG (ME2)

 

Most RPG-Shooters tend to get hit critically and by gamers because, at risk of sounding extremely condescending - they're thick.

 

People can't 'comprehend' the mechanics of an RPG-Shooter - look at the reviews for Alpha Protocol - a game based around RPG-shooting mechanics (i.e. chance to hit =/= won't land exactly where you point the cursor), furthermore if we move over to turn-based games; look at review disparity for Vandal Hearts (generally favourable), which was turn-based one unit moved in order compared to Vandal Hearts 2 (Negative reviews), which was turn-based TWO units move simultaneously in order - something people can't work out even today, when it is REALLY simple a pre-schooler should be able to figure it out.  

 

A lot of the complaints for ME1 seem to be around the shooting-mechanics. A lot of the praise for ME2 was... around the shooting mechanics. RPG-wise ME2 sacrifices a lot in comparison to ME1, squad-dialogue in particular, yet it tightens up everything else. Not saying ME1 > ME2 or anything like that, because they both have their strengths and weaknesses just when it comes to the mass market, of course ME2 is going to win that round when you consider the audience out there aren't exactly high-brow people.

 

Anyway, apologises for presenting that viewpoint, but I think it's worth pointing out. Mass market = needs things to be trivial and easy, that's why you have EA going on record saying they're going to make all their new projects 'faceroll easy' because gamers find their games too hard... =/

First of all, I'd like to point out that squad dialog is in no way related to shooting mechanics. ME2 might have had less squad banter (I actually don't think it does, at least on missions), but that doesn't prove that ME2 "sacrifices a lot." In fact, I think ME2 has more squad dialog in general, it's just all on the Normandy. (Don't quote me on that though)

 

Second of all, AP was criticized for a great many things, not just its poor shooting. Poor camera controls, bugs, and glitchy cover made AP feel generally awkward. Even so, I'll argue that mixing active skill and stats doesn't always work out well. If I'm aiming directly at an enemy and miss because of some stat value, I don't like it. Not because I'm dense, but because I feel cheated. Turn based games can get away with it because they focus on the player's ability to plan rather than to aim. It simply isn't fun when the game is getting in the way of my skills.

 

But most importantly, ME1 isn't an "RPG shooter," it doesn't have percentage based shooting mechanics, it's just a failed version of ME2. Of course ME2 is easier to understand, the mechanics aren't clumsily built and the maps have an actual flow to them. Sure, ME1 had a few extra stats and an inventory system, but they're just complex systems laying over a poor foundation. They don't add depth, they add confusion and a set of meager buffs. So no, ME1 wasn't all that good at what it was trying to do. While ME2 had to sacrifice a few systems, but all for the sake of fun. It made weapon choice have a significant impact and it made level ups feel significant.

 

I too fear EA statement oversimplifying their games. I don't want MENext to be a simple shooter, but I'll still advocate for as streamlined experience. Unnecessary RPG tropes like fetch quests and charisma stats should be taken out and replaced with more fluid gameplay. That doesn't mean I want BioWare to take out every complex system in the game. Quite the opposite, I want them to expand upon the solid foundation the had in ME3, but they should do so carefully. Size and complexity are not the same as fun and depth.

[Pasquale1234]

A problem I have with this insistence on exploration, (similar problem in zelda wii u) is that I'm worried that it'll affect a story. Don't get me wrong, I don't like linear corridors or 'interactive movies'

That's my biggest concern about ME:Next. If the trend set by the trilogy continues, it will be an interactive movie with bouts of shooting fish enemies in a barrel corridor with a PC expected to move and act quickly through areas cluttered with barricades using clunky controls.
 

but I also hate games where you're just plonked in the middle of nowhere with just the words: look for...stuff. I want the exploration to have proper context with a gripping plot and memorable characters, not 45 hours of play time where 25 hours was spent walking from A to B. I'm sure Bioware (and Nintendo) will pull this off, but I don't want the plot to suffer. I don't like how all games seem to need the 'seamless open world' treatment. It's fun exploring, but it also (with some OW games) also means a lot of pointless side quests and a lot of looking at your characters back/car/space ship silently for long periods of time.

I can appreciate that. If I hadn't gotten invested in MEU and Shepard's story in ME1, I never would have bothered with ME2-3, since I really dislike the changes. I very nearly quit ME2 after the first couple of hours - I was enjoying the story content, but not the combat.

The nice thing about open world is the role-playing freedom to create your own story. That approach is at odds with Bioware games, though, since they usually present very strong, multi-faceted companions and a specific story. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

[themikefest]

In ME1, if I didn't want to explore, I didn't and just did the main story.

[StealthGamer92]

In ME1, if I didn't want to explore, I didn't and just did the main story.

 

Yea but some people seem to think their OCD about doing everything in a game means devs should not make em so big.

[RoboticWater]

That's my biggest concern about ME:Next. If the trend set by the trilogy continues, it will be an interactive movie with bouts of shooting fish enemies in a barrel corridor with a PC expected to move and act quickly through areas cluttered with barricades using clunky controls.
 

I can appreciate that. If I hadn't gotten invested in MEU and Shepard's story in ME1, I never would have bothered with ME2-3, since I really dislike the changes. I very nearly quit ME2 after the first couple of hours - I was enjoying the story content, but not the combat.

The nice thing about open world is the role-playing freedom to create your own story. That approach is at odds with Bioware games, though, since they usually present very strong, multi-faceted companions and a specific story. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

But how much roleplaying does an open world offer Mass Effect? I can understand how a freeform approach can enhance a loose narrative or loose gameplay (or quite often, both) and I fully endorse more open hubs and level design; however, I don't see the appeal of absolute freedom if it means muddled down mechanics.

 

How much roleplaying value did ME1's terrain actually offer? That's a legitimate question. For me, it was mostly busywork going from one end pf the map to another, but I don't tend to get into character. I can see a certain novelty in picking your own path, but it didn't offset the boring linear bits I ultimately had to do.

 

I must disagree entirely about your first point. If anything, ME3 showed that BioWare are expanding the size and design of their levels. I remember quite a few of ME3's battles occurring on open fields or large atria. That's much better than ME1's pointless walking and prefab missions.

[StealthGamer92]

But how much roleplaying does an open world offer Mass Effect? I can understand how a freeform approach can enhance a loose narrative or loose gameplay (or quite often, both) and I fully endorse more open hubs and level design; however, I don't see the appeal of absolute freedom if it means muddled down mechanics.

 

How much roleplaying value did ME1's terrain actually offer? That's a legitimate question. For me, it was mostly busywork going from one end pf the map to another, but I don't tend to get into character. I can see a certain novelty in picking your own path, but it didn't offset the boring linear bits I'd ultimately had to do.

 

I must disagree entirely about your first point. If anything, ME3 showed that BioWare are expanding the size and design of their levels. I remember quite a few of ME3's battles occurring on open fields or large atria. That's much better than ME1's pointless walking and prefab missions.

 

You gotta keep in mind ME1 was well the first, and as such was just as much one huge experiment as it was a game. I think there quite a few people who overlook that fact(not asumeing you are just saying).

[Malanek]

In ME1, if I didn't want to explore, I didn't and just did the main story.

Yes, that's what I did. And the game lasted about 7 hours. Could be done quicker as well.

[Vazgen]

I agree. While Mass Effect 3 did use quite a few corridor environments (Geth Dreadnought comes to mind) it also had arena-type locations, such as Menae, Cerberus Abductions and Communications Hub missions. And same dreadnought mission had sideway hallways that you could use to flank enemies and get flanked.

ME2 did not have those, it was very linear and very narrow, ME3 improved on that and also made the cover system stand out less than in ME2. It looks as natural for the most part. 

It's hard to judge ME1 environment design since it is reused so much and it's a first try at that kind of a game. The open world freedom is reduced to arenas around points of interest, everything else is a barren wasteland. You can snipe an enemy from one hill or another, it makes no difference. That is, if you want to bother and don't just one shot them with a Mako. Interiors are too cramped and don't offer much (if any) room to maneuver. 

 

Enemy AI also improved throughout the trilogy. Sure, the enemies are not very bright, but it's a problem with pretty much any shooter. You figure out AI easily enough, human mind is superior to the computer program (so far). 

I think that overall, if looking at gameplay and character creation, series only got better with each installment. 

[themikefest]

Yes, that's what I did. And the game lasted about 7 hours. Could be done quicker as well.

Yep. I did a playthrough in 4 hours 12 minutes