6 réponses à ce sujet

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

As we well know, in the history of RPGs, there has typically been a big divide between open world RPGs and RPGs with good writing that focus on a story. However, in recent times, we've seen developers take new strides and innovate where none has gone before, by combining a focus on writing along with large expanses and open worlds.

Witcher 3, the upcoming Fallout 4, even BioWare's own DA:I.

However, with Mass Effect, the corridor-like level design is necessary for the tight and responsive third person cover shooter mechanics to really shine. This is especially true for Mass Effect 3, which was by far the best game in the trilogy in this regard. So my question is, how is BioWare still able to do that and eschew an open world without looking like a lesser production?

I know some people will say that there's the focus on the story, but Witcher 3 has a focus on the story and it has a massive world. Don't get me wrong, I think that linear games still have a purpose, but it's falling out of favour with AAA for a reason. I'm afraid in the future making linear RPGs won't look as "big budget" and for that reason, I'm scared Mass Effect: Andromedia will look second rate.

Thoughts?

[Valkyrja]

I thought the combat did better when it got out of the corridors into more arena-like areas where you could run around, fall back, and outflank mobs, stuff like the multiplayer maps or the Eden Prime mission in ME3.
 


Wouldn't the exploration and the TPS setpieces be segmented to a degree?

 

You could approach a compound like the above from multiple directions in the Mako but still have to dismount and complete the assault on foot.

 

That is what ME1 tried to do except the boring as **** copy-pasted warehouses they sent you to sucked.

[Jorji Costava]

Two issues come to mind off the top of my head. The first was present as early as ME2. Namely, there was a very clear distinction between combat zones and the rest of the game world. Combat areas were always clearly demarcated by the presence of narrow corridors and plentiful chest-high cover. If you want a more wide-open game world but still want to use smaller areas for combat, you're going to further segregate the combat and non-combat portions of the game. I don't see a quick fix for this, but I'm not sure it's a devastating flaw for a game to have either; still, it's an interesting puzzle in level design.

 

The second is that I think Bioware needs to do a better job making exploration a key mechanic, especially if it wants to pursue a more open-world design. In ME1, for instance, you know where you need to go right from the very beginning: Therum, Noveria, Feros, etc. Thus, you know from the very beginning that exploring around the galaxy is guaranteed to yield non-essential content. Contrast this with something like Star Control 2, where randomly exploring around the galaxy could result in the discovery of plot-critical items, new alien civilizations and crucial information. This made exploration important to the game, and made the entire game map feel like it mattered. This is especially important for a game like Andromeda, whose core conceit is the exploration of a new and unfamiliar galaxy.

 

EDIT: Changed wording.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I like exploration, but I'd also like our encounters to be totally leveled according to our character. Why? DA:I didn't do this, and it resulted in having to grind to get to certain levels in order to open other areas. While that might be okay for the first play through because you're going for "completionist" stuff, for replays it's very tedious. I'd like to be able to go through with the main plot at times and pick and choose which side stuff I do.

 

Skyrim's design for this was well done. Before anyone says the main plot was thin.... I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about concept. You could do the main quest then continue and do all the side stuff, OR do all the side stuff, then do the main quest. It really didn't matter. You could explore the map as much or as little as you wanted. But with the different guilds and stuff the side stuff made more sense than in DA:I where it was they were mostly a grind for the purpose of reaching a certain level so you could close the final rift in a particular area, or get to a level where you could defeat a dragon so you could get raw materials necessary to craft a suit of armor so that you wouldn't get slaughtered later in the game.

 

If you're wearing the N7, you should have the best stuff, not be financing your enemy's war effort - see the various Cerberus armors and weapons that were superior to anything the Alliance was using.

 

In a  new galaxy, exploration is totally necessary.

 

So go open galaxy, but ditch the grind and please do not have a cumbersome inventory, and do not relegate my character to dumpster diving.

[NextGenCowboy]

I love Eden Prime, and Grissom Academy for these very reasons. Multiple paths, multiple vantage points, etc. Obviously that's not the same as a completely open environment, but what it does allow for is the same idea ME1 had. Just, as was said, instead of copy-pasted bunkers, make large open areas, that feed into tight, or slightly less open, combat-centered areas.

 

This also gives you a major advantage in that, when you do break out the wide-open level with very little cover, the fight feels very different, and it feels as epic as a battle like that should.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I think this is where the mass effect multiplayer component can really come in handy, as well as the Omega dlc. The reason being, that these had some very big, very impressive, set pieces, that allowed for both contained corridors and open environments. Having a big area, separated by travel points, can still serve to make the game open world, without ruining the combat. 

 

An ideal would be a massive revamp of the combat to be more active and less static, with an emphasis on mobility and sparse cover, while at the same time keeping guns as a viable option and enemy AI having some level of anti-mob tactics. Mass Effect 1 did not do this, despite the similar sounding idea, what it did was have a poorly implemented cover system and weapon system, in which you could modify assult rifles to break the game by never having cooldown periods, all with in-game items.

 

It can be done, and done well. Bioware demonstrated it in both Citadel and Omega that the technology and experience is avaliable. They just need to know to look to it as the example.

[CrazyCatDude]

I think ME3 did take a step towards less linear combat areas that ME2.  ME2 was pretty strictly "run down a corridor and shoot stuff".  I can only think of a couple of maps in ME2 that weren't *exactly* this.  Halestrom was a series of arenas where the goal was to get across and back without dying, or just get across, and they offered multiple paths to do so, depending on your fighting style.  And Garrus's recruitment mission, Grunt's loyalty mission, the downed Quarian ship and the downed Mech transport.  That's it.

ME3 has a bit more of the "connected arena" approach.  I think Priority Mars and the Cerberus Headquarters were the worst "run down a corridor and shoot stuff" offenders.

 

I'd actually love to see a return to ME1 where the combat areas weren't separated from the rest of the world at all, and the missions required backtracking and such.  Feros was actually wonderful for this.  Novaria to a degree as well.  Virmire, Therum etc not so much.