841 réponses à ce sujet

[goishen]

The thing is, most of the time there was no reason to use the wrong model. The animation is the same for each type of gun. There's no reason to replace my Paladin with a Predator, the animation would have worked just fine anyway.

 

Using a placeholder when the character isn't equipped with the type of gun used is another issue. If they use the engine instead of pre-rendering it, then that wouldn't happen either.

 

 

Right, but take two assault rifles, and one has a handle two inches back from the other.   Do really wanna see the hero walking around with a rifle sticking out of his hand?  I mean, at some point, people must forget that these are video games.  And people are working extremely hard at just making the video animations work.  Much less 3705 (yes, I multiplied 15 * 247) of them.  

[Blackout62]

Actually this didn't bother me, for the same reason the reused interiors didn't in Mass Effect. I always chalked it up to prefabrication and modular construction.

 

Well it made sense in ME1 when we were mostly going to prefabricated buildings on the frontier but by ME2 it seemed weird that the ruins of Tuchanka had the same doors as the skyscrapers of Illium.

[S.W.]

1. Plot out your damn story in advance.

2. Stop info-dumping everything late-game via. a VI.

3. Stop making story-relevant DLC which should be in the main game (Arrival, LotSB, Leviathan...).

4. Don't alter the power levels of organisations, groups, and individuals to suit the plot. Cerberus being an obvious example. Even reap tech doesn't explain how a small division of ex-Alliance intel & tech is everywhere in the galaxy in ME3. Especially since in ME1 they weren't much better than incompetent scientists. No amount of crazy money changes that. Kai Leng is arguably another example of this. Consistency is key.

 

These are all pretty common complaints though. One of the most disappointing, immersion-breaking things for me personally, in ME3, was how flat and disconnected and dead city environments such as the Citadel were. Elevators? 2D sprites? NPCs who never move? Please stop. Never really got the feeling of being in the midst of a living, breathing, intergalactic capital city. I was hoping for an improved, airier, cosmopolitan version of ME2's Omega and damn I was disappointed

[Drone223]

I think that's more an issue with how it was written than the idea itself, ie: technically you die when you beam up in star trek but nobody really cares or thinks about it, until something goes wrong and then it's horrific. Would've been funny if they had a scene in ME2 where Shepard gets their neck snapped by a Krogan, and then wakes up on a Cerberus station getting lectured not to do that again.

The problem with Lazarus project is that having Shepard in coma for 2 years would've achieve the exact same thing and also been more believable. Lazarus project is like synthesis its nothing more than space magic.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bioware loves to create difficulty by locking doors, rather than letting us use sensible chokepoints to funnel enemies.

But it doesn't create difficulty in ME2. Since Shepard cannot miss unless the player wants her to, either there is sufficient ammo in the room or there isn't. If there isn't, the encounter in unwinnable.

[Natureguy85]

Well it made sense in ME1 when we were mostly going to prefabricated buildings on the frontier but by ME2 it seemed a weird that the ruins of Tuchanka had the same doors as the skyscrapers of Illium.

 

That is a good point. Or on the Quarians' old ships.

 

1. Plot out your damn story in advance.

2. Stop info-dumping everything late-game via. a VI.

3. Stop making story-relevant DLC which should be in the main game (Arrival, LotSB, Leviathan...).

4. Don't alter the power levels of organisations, groups, and individuals to suit the plot. Cerberus being an obvious example. Even reap tech doesn't explain how a small division of ex-Alliance intel & tech is everywhere in the galaxy in ME3. Especially since in ME1 they weren't much better than incompetent scientists. No amount of crazy money changes that. Kai Leng is arguably another example of this. Consistency is key.

 

These are all pretty common complaints though. One of the most disappointing, immersion-breaking things for me personally, in ME3, was how flat and disconnected and dead city environments such as the Citadel were. Elevators? 2D sprites? NPCs who never move? Please stop. Never really got the feeling of being in the midst of a living, breathing, intergalactic capital city. I was hoping for an improved, airier, cosmopolitan version of ME2's Omega and damn I was disappointed

 

I agree with all 4, though your examples in number 3 are odd to me.

 

Arrival: Totally irrelevant. The events happen if you play it or not and nothing is done with the time bought.

LotSB: Totally irrelevant. Liara still becomes the Shadow Broker and you really do nothing with it.

Leviathan: Interesting, but unimportant flavor.

The real one to complain about is Javik. He's a Prothean and should have been plot integral. He has some really good dialogue, but unfortunately the endings render it moot.

[dgcatanisiri]

Yeah, if there's any intention of Andromeda being part one of another trilogy, if the Andromeda PC is going to carry over like Shepard did, if this is an ongoing story, the ABSOLUTELY. HAVE. TO PLAN AHEAD. ME2 suffers a massive case of bridge syndrome, the plot spinning its wheels in order to hold back the Reapers' arrival for ME3 - what, exactly, in terms of plot significance, comes from going after the Collectors? Sure, they got connected to the Reapers, but none of it FEELS connected, since ME2 is all about the Collector threat. ME1 and ME3 are better connected than ME2 to either of them. Of course Andromeda's story should be self-contained, to give a clear 'end' to the game that's satisfying for the audience, but if it's act one, then all three acts of this story need to be at least roughly plotted out ahead of time.

 

Also, as I made mention of in the 'can romances be more fair' thread, under no circumstances should any LI's have a distinct treatment level like Ashley/Kaidan versus Liara in ME2 - Ashley/Kaidan are distrustful of Shepard (for damn good reason, not that the plot seems to think so...) while Liara is framed as the one who's got unwavering loyalty to Shepard. Don't separate LI's like this. This/these LI's being distrustful of the PC while that/those LI's being loyal is creating this distinction between them on the basis of the plot, not because of the player's choices.

[Gago]

I liked the auto dialogues in ME3, they made the crew alive and they talked to each other, IMO they were far better than ME2 aka Garrus telling me 24/7 that he needs to do some calibrations or to come back later. In ME3 after every mission someone had something to say about what happened unlike ME2&ME1.

 

Also what I like to be changed in Andromeda is to make the protagonist class relevant in the cutscenes, if I am biotic let me use biotic attacks or to stealth if I am an infiltrator and etc. Meeting the clone in the hangar bay on the Normandy was the only place where that happened.

[Catastrophy]

It's a new engine and god knows when we can tweak it - so I'd like to have a FoV slider in the options.

 

And an easy screenshot feature!

[AlanC9]

3. Stop making story-relevant DLC which should be in the main game (Arrival, LotSB, Leviathan...).

How would this actually work in practice? I guess the writers could just throw away such ideas because they're too good, but do we really want them to do that?

[angol fear]

3. Stop making story-relevant DLC which should be in the main game (Arrival, LotSB, Leviathan...).

 

Leviathan was not supposed to be in the main game. Leviathan, while story related, is useless, non relevant.

[Glaso]

What we need the most are different buttons for interaction, running and taking cover...

[Ambivalent]

A better and sensible consequence system. Sometimes good intentions should lead to terrible things while bad choices can save lives etc.

 

Ehh i hate to give and hear about these examples over over again but here we go:

 

Neville Chamberlain was against any conflict between any nations, supporter of peace in heart. He tried really hard to avoid any aggression between Germany and other countries.

 

But with all his good intentions all he could do was to watch while Germans mobilize their army, Czechoslovakia got annexed, union of Austria and Germany. In the end "a war" which would end 55 millions of lives.

 

He could simply ignore Hitler's demands and get ready for war. At least Germany would lose their "momentum" while dealing with Czechoslovakia and Austria, and would lose these country's industries. Even at 1936 when Nahtzees had no real force Hitler could be get rid of.(A few German generals talked about how they were weak at 1936 and thought Germany's re-occupying Rhineland with military force was a suicidal move etc. IIRC Ludwig Beck or Franz Halder)

 

But i said it, he was a good guy. Only naive but that lead world a big catastrophy.

 

In gaming terms and typical moral system he'd be a saint. But in truth he was a saint that was even mocked by his own nation by being that much naive.

 

Hitler was a decorated WW I veteran. He had a lover and many admirers. He solved unemployment in Germany. He had a dog, loved children(Probably only "arian" ones but still). Probably loved and cared about his loyal staff and generals at least while things were going well. At the start he was "smart" enough to concentrate on Panzy divisions and blitzkrieg doctirine that Guderian "perfected", so i can't say he's dumb or conservative at least in military terms. He also designed one of the most iconic cars of the world, we can say he's an "artist"(Vokswagen)

 

But he was evil too. I don't think i should go on about starting a war, killing democracy, halocaust, leaving a pile of dust as a country behind him. 

 

In gaming terms and with typical "moral" system if Hitler was a protaganist he'd end with being neutral because of doing good stuff before the war. 

 

But there is something developers and players miss "The Banality of Evil". Being evil isn't firing laser from your eyes or eating babies alive. It is just typical, like trying to make more profit by selling illegal stuff or typical excuse of "following orders". I'll post a few notes in the end if you want to see what i mean in detail because it's getting long and long

 

So in short i'm tired of listening to "developer tales" about "good vs bad", where choices are crystal clear and there is no "backfired" or "correct at that time but proven wrong" kinda choices with meaningful consequences.

 

PS: For further reading on "banality of evil" :

 

https://en.wikipedia...anality_of_evil

https://en.wikipedia...ison_experiment

https://en.wikipedia...gram_experiment

[Hiemoth]

A better and sensible consequence system. Sometimes good intentions should lead to terrible things while bad choices can save lives etc.

 

Ehh i hate to give and hear about these examples over over again but here we go:

 

Neville Chamberlain was against any conflict between any nations, supporter of peace in heart. He tried really hard to avoid any aggression between Germany and other countries.

 

But with all his good intentions all he could do was to watch while Germans mobilize their army, Czechoslovakia got annexed, union of Austria and Germany. In the end "a war" which would end 55 millions of lives.

 

He could simply ignore Hitler's demands and get ready for war. At least Germany would lose their "momentum" while dealing with Czechoslovakia and Austria, and would lose these country's industries. Even at 1936 when Nahtzees had no real force Hitler could be get rid of.(A few German generals talked about how they were weak at 1936 and thought Germany's re-occupying Rhineland with military force was a suicidal move etc. IIRC Ludwig Beck or Franz Halder)

 

But i said it, he was a good guy. Only naive but that lead world a big catastrophy.

 

In gaming terms and typical moral system he'd be a saint. But in truth he was a saint that was even mocked by his own nation by being that much naive.

 

Hitler was a decorated WW I veteran. He had a lover and many admirers. He solved unemployment in Germany. He had a dog, loved children(Probably only "arian" ones but still). Probably loved and cared about his loyal staff and generals at least while things were going well. At the start he was "smart" enough to concentrate on Panzy divisions and blitzkrieg doctirine that Guderian "perfected", so i can't say he's dumb or conservative at least in military terms. He also designed one of the most iconic cars of the world, we can say he's an "artist"(Vokswagen)

 

But he was evil too. I don't think i should go on about starting a war, killing democracy, halocaust, leaving a pile of dust as a country behind him. 

 

In gaming terms and with typical "moral" system if Hitler was a protaganist he'd end with being neutral because of doing good stuff before the war. 

 

But there is something developers and players miss "The Banality of Evil". Being evil isn't firing laser from your eyes or eating babies alive. It is just typical, like trying to make more profit by selling illegal stuff or typical excuse of "following orders". I'll post a few notes in the end if you want to see what i mean in detail because it's getting long and long

 

So in short i'm tired of listening to "developer tales" about "good vs bad", where choices are crystal clear and there is no "backfired" or "correct at that time but proven wrong" kinda choices with meaningful consequences.

 

PS: For further reading on "banality of evil" :

 

https://en.wikipedia...anality_of_evil

https://en.wikipedia...ison_experiment

https://en.wikipedia...gram_experiment

 

You do realize you missed and oversimplified an insane number of central details relelvant those situations, especially concerning Neville's actions, correct?

[Halfdan The Menace]

I don't like any of the lockpicking systems in ME1/ME2. Annoying as hell, especially on higher difficulty.

[In Exile]

You do realize you missed and oversimplified an insane number of central details relelvant those situations, especially concerning Neville's actions, correct?

 

And the geopolitics, since a great deal of the political technocrats saw the fascists as their buffer with the communists, which motivated a conciliatory attitude. That's ignoring those who were just outright fascists themselves. The political will wasn't there for a war, even if Neville's role had been first played by someone like Churcill. You'd be more likely to get the government thrown out on a no-confidence vote. 

 

The peace was, if anything, the most ruthlessly pragmatic thing done at the time. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Yeah of course his change made sense from a lore standpoint. Indoctrination is a useful card to play. I object though how sudden the change was, in ME2 he wanted the Reapers destroyed in ME3 he wants to control them...It was too sudden that felt like rewriting more than a carefully planned character development. I agree with you that his indoctrination was way too obvious. The line between a masterfully done character devlopement and a rewrite of his personality is very thin. One can object he was always like this but then this was not explained well IMO throughout the game. ME2 more like gave the idea he was a human supremacist with ruthless methods...rather than an indoctrinated tool.

 

Also since you mention.

 

-No more indoctrination!

 

Indoctrination was a cheap-cop-out that replaced actual drama and conflict. It made people pathetic victims when they could have been simply defiant or in disagreement with Shepard.

 

What, exactly, would have changed if TIM wasn't indoctrinated? If he was absolutely right, that we could master and control Reaper tech for our own benefits, if we were willing to accept the costs along the way? Would TIM have joined Shepard? Would Cerberus have supported the genophage? Would TIM not have let Thessia fall while he prepared a gambit to control the Reapers? Would he not have been in Shepard's way as Shepard struggles to activate the Crucible?

 

There are a lot of things in the Cerberus plot I take issue with or would have preferred otherwise,  but TIM's indoctrination weakened every single aspect of Cerberus.

 

 

It much the same elsewhere. There are plenty of available reasons for spies and traitors other than brainwashing. Brainwashing devices don't create drama- they reduce it to pitiful victims to be mowed down guilt-free because they can't be reasoned with.

[Arppis]

Better cover system. Heck, no cover system would be the best! Have "shoulder swap" button and crouch.

 

But if you have to do a cover system, make it a dynamic one, where character automatically goes against cover when too close. Also have a crouch button because of that. Because I want full control of my character.

[In Exile]

Indoctrination was a cheap-cop-out that replaced actual drama and conflict. It made people pathetic victims when they could have been simply defiant or in disagreement with Shepard.

 

What, exactly, would have changed if TIM wasn't indoctrinated? If he was absolutely right, that we could master and control Reaper tech for our own benefits, if we were willing to accept the costs along the way? Would TIM have joined Shepard? Would Cerberus have supported the genophage? Would TIM not have let Thessia fall while he prepared a gambit to control the Reapers? Would he not have been in Shepard's way as Shepard struggles to activate the Crucible?

 

There are a lot of things in the Cerberus plot I take issue with or would have preferred otherwise,  but TIM's indoctrination weakened every single aspect of Cerberus.

 

 

It much the same elsewhere. There are plenty of available reasons for spies and traitors other than brainwashing. Brainwashing devices don't create drama- they reduce it to pitiful victims to be mowed down guilt-free because they can't be reasoned with.

 

What's even stupider about this whole plot is that TIM was right. We can control the reapers. We need a space magic device and a reaper super AI to be onside to do it, but mission 100% accomplished. 

 

If Bioware wanted a control ending, then having TIM as an antagonist doesn't make any sense. But, really, they way the handled Cerberus doesn't make sense generally. 

[Dean_the_Young]

What's even stupider about this whole plot is that TIM was right. We can control the reapers. We need a space magic device and a reaper super AI to be onside to do it, but mission 100% accomplished. 

 

If Bioware wanted a control ending, then having TIM as an antagonist doesn't make any sense. But, really, they way the handled Cerberus doesn't make sense generally. 

 

Honestly I think they were intending the Batarians to fill that role, and then decided at some point after ME2 that Cerberus was popular and cool and **** and should be the role.

 

 

Considering the role they play, it would have made sense. The Batarian Hegemony as a Reaper Puppet state, invading Earth in retribution for Arrival even as they are themselves are being occupied and huskified. Rather than the galaxy stumbling to join against the Reapers, the initial political stumbling block is the Council not wanting to get involved in a Batarian-Human grudgematch that is, in a sense, Shepard's fault. All the while, the 'puppet' Batarian state, slavers and all, conspires to betray and enslave the Reapers in turn.

 

But that would have edged out Cerberus too much, who was too popular, and so Cerberus it was.

[In Exile]

Honestly I think they were intending the Batarians to fill that role, and then decided at some point after ME2 that Cerberus was popular and cool and **** and should be the role.

 

 

Considering the role they play, it would have made sense. The Batarian Hegemony as a Reaper Puppet state, invading Earth in retribution for Arrival even as they are themselves are being occupied and huskified. Rather than the galaxy stumbling to join against the Reapers, the initial political stumbling block is the Council not wanting to get involved in a Batarian-Human grudgematch that is, in a sense, Shepard's fault. All the while, the 'puppet' Batarian state, slavers and all, conspires to betray and enslave the Reapers in turn.

 

But that would have edged out Cerberus too much, who was too popular, and so Cerberus it was.

 

That makes a great deal more sense to me. With Cerberus, I was always a fan of a midly branching plot where the ME3 human contact was either Ceberus or the Alliance. Ignoring how ME3 actually went down, if we avoided going to Earth and just had the same set pieces (the human embassy on the Citadel for the Alliance path, and TIM's holo chats for the Ceberus path) it would be a relatively low resource way of doing things. 

 

But then again, I was always onside with the idea behind Cerberus, apart from the weird racism and their generally hilarious mad-scientist level incompetence. 

[Fixers0]

I always thought TIM was not indoctrinated until the very end, nontheless the one thing that really bothered about Cerberus in ME3 was TIM sudden ambition to control the reapers, not so much his desire to do so, but rather the feasbility of it; The Reapers are supposedly entirely out of our league and yet one puny human thinks he and his shadowy terrorist group have the capabilty to exert control of them. Needless to say I was quite suprised that control turned out to be viable option in the end.

 

But that would have edged out Cerberus too much, who was too popular, and so Cerberus it was.

 

I never got the idea that Cerberus was that popular, I actually mostly got the impression that a good portion of the fanbase were annoyed that the Cerberus railroading was forced down our throats so much in ME2.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Right, but take two assault rifles, and one has a handle two inches back from the other.   Do really wanna see the hero walking around with a rifle sticking out of his hand?  I mean, at some point, people must forget that these are video games.  And people are working extremely hard at just making the video animations work.  Much less 3705 (yes, I multiplied 15 * 247) of them.  

 

You are missing the point. There are no seperate animations for different assault rifles. Each rifle uses the exactly same animation as all the others. Always has. Fact.

Which means there is no point using an Avenger in place of whatever else your character actually has equipped. So they have to make 5 animations for each cutscene, not 3705. Even that could be reduced to 4, since every class has to equip at least 2 weapons, so you could skip sniper rifles. I'm not entirely sure but I think the SMG and pistol animations are very similiar, if not actually the same. They use the same spot on the armor, too. If they are the same, then you can reduce the animations to three. Hardly the gigantic amount of work you make it out to be. 

 

I think it's easier to overlook a suboptimal grip on a weapon than the completely wrong weapon anyway.

[Navasha]

My only real complaint about problems in past games is that Bioware doesn't seem to understand that a PC platform is not just another console platform.   Seriously, just spend maybe a week on PC UI issues.   Better yet, task just ONE individual (preferably someone who has never touched a controller in their lives) to handle the development of the PC controls and UI setups.  

 

Bioware tends to score 9/10 for me on most issues, but when it comes to PC controls and UI... its about a 3.  

 

-Drag and Drop mouse cursor

-specialized and separate keys of different actions (no super spacebar that does 18 different actions)

-Mouse controllable camera angles

-adjustable FoV

-fully mappable keys and mouse buttons

 

We aren't really asking for the world here.   Just industry standard basic level PC controls.

[prosthetic soul]

Oh, so you're only talking about not killing the PC? OK, but then why did you write "2. do not kill character we care , we see evolving, enjoy romancing ." You enjoy romancing Shepard?

Anyway, news flash: Shepard only dies if you let him.

Patently false.  At best, it's a case of Schrodinger's Cat with Shepard and the ME 3 endings.  At worst, he's dead in every ending.  But don't you dare tell me that the ****** poor 3 second clip of my Shepard inhaling at the very end was him "living."