154 réponses à ce sujet

[Arcian]

Perhaps they should come up with something original instead of cribbing armor designs from Halo.

[N7M]

While there may be some instances of visual negative space in ME1 (though I can't imagine where), I think it's safe to say that use of negative space is not a component of Mass Effect 1's overall visual aesthetic. Simplicity, however, is.

 

I think it's unfair to describe the extra visual elements as garish. In fact, looking at modern examples of combat armor and space suits, ME:A's suit design makes total sense; it has a lot of layered and protruding armor elements enclosed around a more flexible material. The muscular "Halo" look probably comes from an effort to be more ergonomic. ME1's armor looks more like a stormtrooper's than a potential future soldier. That's a valid design philosophy, but not more so than ME:A's.

 

Also, the person in the ME:A image looks like he's showing off because he is. The best way to show off as much of the armor as possible is to puff out the chest and splay the arms a little.

 

Yes, the ME:A armor is comparable to modern examples of combat armor and space suits and that is part of the aesthetic problem.  ME1's armors, particularly the slimmer human ones, gave the aesthetic impression of future technologies that incorporated exotic materials and nanotechnology. That ME:A armor looks more along the lines of conventional materials and microtechnology.  An aesthetic choice that appears to imply a step backwards technologically.

[SNascimento]

ME1's armors, particularly the slimmer human ones, gave the aesthetic impression of future technologies that incorporated exotic materials and nanotechnology. 

How is that? ME1's armors looked like something made from plastic like materials, not exotic at all. And nanotechnology even less. 

[N7M]

How is that? ME1's armors looked like something made from plastic like materials, not exotic at all. And nanotechnology even less. 

 

It's not only how they look, that is gloss. It's by what they accomplished in the setting. 

[Linkenski]

Don't go into ME:A believing it will be a blast to the past. They're looking ahead while trying to incorporate elements people loved from the trilogy and addressing some of the criticisms people had with 3. Personally I think ME:A reeks of pandering but that's purely pre-judgmental and I'll play it regardless of whether it's good or bad, so I'll get back to that once I've played it.

[SNascimento]

It's not only how they look, that is gloss. It's by what they accomplished in the setting. 

Would yo mind explaining?

[N7M]

Would yo mind explaining?

 

I'm not sure what needs explaining. This pertains to the idea of negative space in the narrative aesthetic. Certain technologies that could be conceived and that could take place in a science fiction setting wouldn't have appearance equivalencies to our current techs. Their presence would have to be implied rather than overtly shown.

[SNascimento]

I'm not sure what needs explaining. This pertains to the idea of negative space in the narrative aesthetic. Certain technologies that could be conceived and that could take place in a science fiction setting wouldn't have appearance equivalencies to our current techs. Their presence would have to be implied rather than overtly shown.

 

Hm, so you're saying ME1's armor design does imply a futuristic tech that the ones from the other games doesn't? And how does Mass Effect use negative space?

[Linkenski]

Unless I'm mistaken he simply means that ME1 was the best game when it came to accounting for the believability of the setting with its armor, not because of how it looked or how it seemed to have been built but because it always shows soldiers with full armor and helmet when they realistically should require to have it, and the alien characters are no exception: No mouth helmet breathers, and just overall more attention to detail in the narrative regarding the aesthetics of the setting and less style > substance design.

 

Not to dig up the grave but Shepard talking to the Catalyst in ME3 would be a perfect example of how ME1 was more realistic than 3. You can headcanon any issue away but this one stands directly in contrast to climbing the Citadel vertically in ME1 with mag-boots on. There was no atmospheric shield to protect from space in ME1. If you stepped outside the boundary, you needed space equipment for it, and despite of the options-menu helmet options in 3 it was hard to get a natural balance of making squadmates fight with helmets on and off appropriately, like it seemed the game prefered to have everyone helmetless for more emotion and emphasis on face closeups in cutscenes. We've gone far away from that more hard sci-fi esque feel the first game had. No overdesigned armors or style > substance crap for the sake of awesomeness, just a sense of self-respect for its attempt to depict a believable futuristic sci-fi setting.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

I haven't read the thread, but I would imagine that there isn't much support for it.

 

I'd personally prefer it. I always liked the first one the best for a lot of things, this included.

[DaemionMoadrin]

ME1 was more realistic and had a more serious sci-fi feel to it than the sequels ... but that doesn't mean it was believable. It just wasn't quite so bad.

 

I've thought about it and in the end there is no way to correct Mass Effect without it losing its identity.

 

There's still a lot that can be improved. The level design for starters. If you have me go through a person's living quarters then make them lived in. Or at least place a bed, a table and a chair in it. Not just a container in a corner.

 

I hope ME:A won't repeat the design failures like steering a ship with a dozen "haptic" touchscreens and similiar stuff. I really, really hope they at least google their ideas to see if there is a RL equivalent which they could use instead (and then turn that into a futuristic version). A scientific/engineering advisor would be asking for too much I guess.

[Arcian]

Not to dig up the grave but Shepard talking to the Catalyst in ME3 would be a perfect example of how ME1 was more realistic than 3. You can headcanon any issue away but this one stands directly in contrast to climbing the Citadel vertically in ME1 with mag-boots on. There was no atmospheric shield to protect from space in ME1. If you stepped outside the boundary, you needed space equipment for it, and despite of the options-menu helmet options in 3 it was hard to get a natural balance of making squadmates fight with helmets on and off appropriately, like it seemed the game prefered to have everyone helmetless for more emotion and emphasis on face closeups in cutscenes. We've gone far away from that more hard sci-fi esque feel the first game had. No overdesigned armors or style > substance crap for the sake of awesomeness, just a sense of self-respect for its attempt to depict a believable futuristic sci-fi setting.

This is what the codex has to say:
 

The Wards are open-topped, with skyscrapers rising from the superstructure. Towers are sealed against vacuum, as the breathable atmosphere envelope is only maintained to a height of about seven meters. The atmosphere is contained by the centrifugal force of rotation and a "membrane" of dense, colorless sulphur hexafluoride gas, held in place by carefully managed mass effect fields.

You could make the assumption that the Catalyst's "chamber" utilizes this technology to maintain a breathable atmosphere there. However, this would only make sense if the Catalyst expected Shepard (or someone other organic) to make it there in the first place. Of course, given their track record, BioWare might just as well pull the "Reaper tech can do anything" card as they have in the last two games.

[N7M]

Hm, so you're saying ME1's armor design does imply a futuristic tech that the ones from the other games doesn't? And how does Mass Effect use negative space?

 

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Tech/biotic protection/resistance were listed properties of the armors in the first game. This implies materials or technologies incorporated into the fictional armor to dampen or resist effects of these particular attacks. The negative space in this case is apparent in the visual narrative which doesn't slap on some large superficial device to achieve this since the functioning fictional technology is advanced futuretech. It is obscure by its nature. In this case, the implication of nanotechnology. 

[SNascimento]

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Tech/biotic protection/resistance were listed properties of the armors in the first game. This implies materials or technologies incorporated into the fictional armor to dampen or resist effects of these particular attacks. The negative space in this case is apparent in the visual narrative which doesn't slap on some large superficial device to achieve this since the functioning fictional technology is advanced futuretech. It is obscure by its nature. In this case, the implication of nanotechnology. 

Hm, I do not share your view. 

[Giantdeathrobot]

If one means that squadmates wear armor in combat instead of tatoos and high heels, and fully sealed suits rather than breath masks in vacuum, then I'm all for it.

 

The actual armor design in ME1 is bland, however, with a few exceptions. It's all the same reskinned stuff, just with heavy armor having more bits and bigger shoulders. If you ask me the Blood Dragon armor from ME2/ME3 trumps them all by its lonesome, and some of the sets and pieces from ME3 look good as well.

[AlanC9]

. There was no atmospheric shield to protect from space in ME1.

Ummm.... we actually see one in operation when the Normandy docks and undocks at the Citadel.

That doesn't mean much for the Catalyst sequence, of course. OTOH, once you accept the existence of, for instance, the Control terminals, the air is just more of the same.

[Drakoriz]

Yes, the ME:A armor is comparable to modern examples of combat armor and space suits and that is part of the aesthetic problem.  ME1's armors, particularly the slimmer human ones, gave the aesthetic impression of future technologies that incorporated exotic materials and nanotechnology. That ME:A armor looks more along the lines of conventional materials and microtechnology.  An aesthetic choice that appears to imply a step backwards technologically.

 

i really miss ur point here, bc the look of the armor on ME 1 compare to ME A armor look like low tech all the way. I mean really for a futuristic armor having full plate armor looking like the heavy armor make the impresion that u have 0 movility in that armor. Any type of Exo-combat armor this day is compose of multiple smaller piece to make it more flexible during combat that is the main issue about wearing armor.

 

 

Not to dig up the grave but Shepard talking to the Catalyst in ME3 would be a perfect example of how ME1 was more realistic than 3. You can headcanon any issue away but this one stands directly in contrast to climbing the Citadel vertically in ME1 with mag-boots on. There was no atmospheric shield to protect from space in ME1. If you stepped outside the boundary, you needed space equipment for it, and despite of the options-menu helmet options in 3 it was hard to get a natural balance of making squadmates fight with helmets on and off appropriately, like it seemed the game prefered to have everyone helmetless for more emotion and emphasis on face closeups in cutscenes. We've gone far away from that more hard sci-fi esque feel the first game had. No overdesigned armors or style > substance crap for the sake of awesomeness, just a sense of self-respect for its attempt to depict a believable futuristic sci-fi setting.

 

ok here u have 2 problems, 1 first the Citadel have a shield that generate a Atmosphere (is on the lore) and the other is no meter if the game want to be realistic or no, on a conversation that is a key moment of the story covering the protagonist face kill the scene. No meter if u trying to make it feel realistic or no.

 

 

ME1 was more realistic and had a more serious sci-fi feel to it than the sequels ... but that doesn't mean it was believable. It just wasn't quite so bad.

 

I've thought about it and in the end there is no way to correct Mass Effect without it losing its identity.

 

There's still a lot that can be improved. The level design for starters. If you have me go through a person's living quarters then make them lived in. Or at least place a bed, a table and a chair in it. Not just a container in a corner.

 

I hope ME:A won't repeat the design failures like steering a ship with a dozen "haptic" touchscreens and similiar stuff. I really, really hope they at least google their ideas to see if there is a RL equivalent which they could use instead (and then turn that into a futuristic version). A scientific/engineering advisor would be asking for too much I guess.

 

Actually ME in general do a good job, most of the building feel that u can live on them. But i really fail to see where is the more realistic feel ME 1 have over 2 and 3.

Only point really i can see is ME 2 companions armors. But ME 3 fix that.

 

And yeah Jak and Samara are exceptions to the rules. But the way they look is to represent their personalities. If everyone where to wear the same armor bc to make it feel real, the personalty on the character will die. Even on the way the DA I chose to show armor on the companions is base on the personalty that why most of the armor on Iron Buld have him half naked.

 

We need to realize game arent make to feel real, bc they arent simulators. They try to transmit a feeling with the story.

 

I know ppl praise ME 1 for a better game, but if i go on detail, and i look each planet i visit on ME 1, those planet feel horrible. Most are the same with a different color.

In my personal opinion ME 1-3 u can feel a nice evolution on the aesthetic of the game in general and where the developer want to go, but, where limited by the technology of the time when they release ME 1. Now on ME A for the little i see the have bring the next step to that evolution, the armor for the little that we saw feel like a real evolution from ME3 armors.

[Osena109]

Calling it now you can get N7 Armor if you pre order lol.

[Killroy]

Hm, so you're saying ME1's armor design does imply a futuristic tech that the ones from the other games doesn't? And how does Mass Effect use negative space?

 

I think wyrdx is using "negative space" in place of "less is more." The armor designs of ME1 are more sleek and less busy. The armors in ME2 and 3 are much busier, all clashing lines and materials and tones. The tech of the ME1 armors is internal. The tech of the ME2 and 3 armors is "looky! it's all metal and stuff!" 

[Il Divo]

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Tech/biotic protection/resistance were listed properties of the armors in the first game. This implies materials or technologies incorporated into the fictional armor to dampen or resist effects of these particular attacks. The negative space in this case is apparent in the visual narrative which doesn't slap on some large superficial device to achieve this since the functioning fictional technology is advanced futuretech. It is obscure by its nature. In this case, the implication of nanotechnology. 

 

But that doesn't change the fact that thicker material = less chance of penetration by fast moving projectiles. All that means is for Mass Effect's heavier armors, they're employing more of this advanced futuretech.

 

Edit: Although I should point out, if we're using "nanotechnology" as yet another catch-all term for technology designed to resist biotic attacks, that's very questionable.

[Mcfly616]

Perhaps they should come up with something original instead of cribbing armor designs from Halo.

 Can't stand the armor pictured in the ME:A concept art. Looks like a fans lackluster attempt at aping some Mjolnir armor.

[Nohvarr]

Honestly, no. It's a new sector of the universe, a new time period and the people have advantages and restrictions that they didn't have in the original game (Both in universe and meta) Let the new aesthetic reflect that instead of clinging to the past.

[SNascimento]

I think wyrdx is using "negative space" in place of "less is more." The armor designs of ME1 are more sleek and less busy. The armors in ME2 and 3 are much busier, all clashing lines and materials and tones. The tech of the ME1 armors is internal. The tech of the ME2 and 3 armors is "looky! it's all metal and stuff!" 

Hm, I think it's easy to overstate the difference from armors in ME1 and ME2(3):



The main difference is that while ME1's armor feel homogeneous, like everything is made of rubber, ME2 has at least two layers to it: something like plate armor and underneath a more cloth like material. They do give a different feeling though. One might also wonder how much technical limitations played a part in the design of ME1's armors.

I wouldn't mind something more in those lines in Andromeda as an alternative option, but I'm also gladly they are following the template set by ME2 and ME3. 

[Oldren Shepard]

Prefer the new (Andromeda) style.

[falconlord5]

Depends on what you mean by 'aesthetic'.

 

If you mean the atmosphere of ME1, then yes most definitely. ME1 felt like a much bigger game than either of the sequels, with it's darker lighting, open areas (no load screens, please. Elevators were much, much better) and the Mako. ME2, in particular, felt cramped and railroaded.

 

If you're referring to the armour designs, that's more of a hit and miss with me. On the whole, I like the designs for Shepard's more in ME2 and ME3. But I hate the lack of armour, especially on your female companions, in the latter two games. BioWare needs to ditch that particular design choice as fast as possible.