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.
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.
Three games. Reaper tech was magic way back in ME1.
NOPE!
Kidding, I preferred the light/medium/heavy system and liked the diversity of some of the armors.
But man, some were really, really ugly.
Pink Armor works...i'm just saying...
Pink Armor works...i'm just saying...
Pink is best mods to the help.
Too much pink now....
although Kasumi in Pink and Black is fantastic. Also, how did Samara get on Purgatory?
Too much pink now....
although Kasumi in Pink and Black is fantastic. Also, how did Samara get on Purgatory?
Save editor you can unlock all companions. Actually it was planed to Shepards body to be saved by Legion not Liara so if you unlock him at the beginning he even have dialogue.
Tali accused of bringing geth parts. Shepard bring Legion. Smooth 
If you slavishly copy the aesthetics of ME1, doesn't that make MEA even more a reboot? If it's to lose that tag and win over the doubters, wouldn't it be better to go its own way and be visually distinct from the previous games? Not to the extent that it's not recognisably a Mass Effect game, but enough to be its own thing.
If you slavishly copy the aesthetics of ME1, doesn't that make MEA even more a reboot? If it's to lose that tag and win over the doubters, wouldn't it be better to go its own way and be visually distinct from the previous games? Not to the extent that it's not recognisably a Mass Effect game, but enough to be its own thing.
You have that backward. Having it's own unique aesthetic would make it more of a reboot.
You have that backward. Having it's own unique aesthetic would make it more of a reboot.
How do you work that out?
How do you work that out?
How do you? Sticking to a previous aesthetic is staying true to the series. Introducing an entirely new aesthetic is not. To reboot a series is to start over and do things differently.
How do you? Sticking to a previous aesthetic is staying true to the series. Introducing an entirely new aesthetic is not. To reboot a series is to start over and do things differently.
I never said entirely new. I suggest you re-read what I wrote instead because you clearly haven't read it correctly.
I never said entirely new. I suggest you re-read what I wrote instead because you clearly haven't read it correctly.
You mean this?
"If it's to lose that [reboot] tag and win over the doubters, wouldn't it be better to go its own way and be visually distinct from the previous games?"
Because that's a sign of a reboot. Sticking to an established aesthetic is a sign of a sequel.
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.
This game doesn't take place with the technology of today. There is, of course, a need for the game to not completely remove itself from recognizable cultural artifacts and equipment ergonomics to remain relatable to the player but that doesn't mean this work of science fiction has to remain anchored to current day appearances.
The plating of the some of the ME1 heavy suits do look excessive and overemphasizes the heavy aesthetic. The skins could also use updating. However, redesigning the suits to emphasis a current day combat aesthetic is a step in the wrong direction.
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!"
Partly, that is what I'm saying. The technology of the suits is internalized -as you mentioned- and is suggested in the negative space of the aesthetic of gameplay and narrative. For example, the player can see that Shepard uses a type of counter pressure suit instead of pressure suit for vacuum which is made from exotic materials that appears to self-seal among having other qualities. There is no need to clutter the visible aesthetic with layer upon layer of external glamorizing or have idiot ball conversation with NPCs to validate by explaining in game such aesthetic choices. Such things create branches of thought that distract from the story and setting as well as take up resources better spent elsewhere.
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.
Perhaps, thicker may be better but the why is important. In a fiction like Mass Effect there could be technologies that allow for personal reactive armors which could be thicker due to incorporation of such a tech but it's the internal technology adding thickness not simply heavier plates of the same ablative material. This also doesn't imply the armor has to be thicker to be heavy. There could be technologies that certain classes need in their armor that others don't. Biotic enhancements being an obvious example. Perhaps, heavy armor doesn't need to be a thing but armor by class could be. The suits themselves also don't need to be classically ablative or resistant to tech attacks or biotics, their resistance could be the result of mass effect technology. There is no mention that I'm aware of that says armor technology is nanotech, that was something that seemed implied by the aesthetic and functions of the suit in ME1. There could be other fictional explanations or it may have been a limitation of design.
Partly, that is what I'm saying. The technology of the suits is internalized -as you mentioned- and is suggested in the negative space of the aesthetic of gameplay and narrative. For example, the player can see that Shepard uses a type of counter pressure suit instead of pressure suit for vacuum which is made from exotic materials that appears to self-seal among having other qualities. There is no need to clutter the visible aesthetic with layer upon layer of external glamorizing or have idiot ball conversation with NPCs to validate by explaining in game such aesthetic choices. Such things create branches of thought that distract from the story and setting as well as take up resources better spent elsewhere.
There may be no need to add more visual detail, but that doesn't mean that more detail is necessarily a bad thing. The concept of layering various materials over each other inherent to ME2's designs evokes a more realistic construction and implies that a greater amount of thought was put into making this piece of technology. It seems more relatable, which for amor–a thing you're supposed to slip into–is a good thing.
The same can be said about expositional content. If this were a movie with a limited run time, sure, having exposition about armor design is useless, but this being a game, time is not nearly as big a factor. The writers could whip up a few paragraphs in their spare time explaining the armor construction process, and as long as the player gets to choose whether or not they want to hear about this stuff, it's not detrimental to the pacing. The sheer quantity of codex entries in the Dragon Age games makes the lore and by extension the immediate world appear more real.
I also seriously disagree with the notion that ME2-3's armor is cluttered; their designs have more visual elements, but they follow a nice flow. Other than a few LEDs, there are very few frills.
There is no mention that I'm aware of that says armor technology is nanotech, that was something that seemed implied by the aesthetic and functions of the suit in ME1. There could be other fictional explanations or it may have been a limitation of design.
I think you're conflating intentionally sparse design with lazy design and technical restrictions.
This isn't The Hills Like White Elephants, I don't see any great thematic or stylistic benefit to leave armor design in such an ill-defined state. At most, the alleged negative space implies that it's the future and people have access to materials which seem effectively like magic to us. Sure, the futury connotations are nice, but it comes at the cost of lore. The Mass Effect games do a fairly decent job keeping most technology within reasonable technological evolutionary standards. Eezo and some of its derived technologies stand out as the only advancements that are effectively magic.
The only one with reasonably realistic lighting was ME1. ME2 had way too much orange everywhere (it's a sunset all the time), and ME3 had too much contrast. Skin was too pale, and hair was too dark (in ME3).
It was only a problem on Earth IMO, and hey, I liked ME2's more artistic look but admittedly it made it feel a bit more like a comic bookish artstyle than realistic and therefore I always felt there was, at least more consistency to the look of ME1 and ME3 than either one had with 2.
You mean this?
"If it's to lose that [reboot] tag and win over the doubters, wouldn't it be better to go its own way and be visually distinct from the previous games?"
Because that's a sign of a reboot. Sticking to an established aesthetic is a sign of a sequel.
Depends, I think, if the person asking for a reboot feels that the series has strayed away from the original aesthetic. Then "reboot" can mean a return to the original that they enjoyed.
In answering the OP, I like the direction they're going with the armor so no, I don't want a return to the old armor. But different strokes for different folks.
Please no returning to old armor, ME2/ME3 did it so much better.
What i want back is the art style, done in a much more appealing way in engine. In ME1 it didn't come out quite right.
Partly, that is what I'm saying. The technology of the suits is internalized -as you mentioned- and is suggested in the negative space of the aesthetic of gameplay and narrative. For example, the player can see that Shepard uses a type of counter pressure suit instead of pressure suit for vacuum which is made from exotic materials that appears to self-seal among having other qualities. There is no need to clutter the visible aesthetic with layer upon layer of external glamorizing or have idiot ball conversation with NPCs to validate by explaining in game such aesthetic choices. Such things create branches of thought that distract from the story and setting as well as take up resources better spent elsewhere.
My point was that an RPG shouldn't be trying to deliver an experience that has nothing to do with the PC's experience in the first place. It should be trying to deliver the experience of being the PC. That's hard enough even without trying to convey contradictory experiences at the same time.
Edit: I'm not really complaining about ME1's UNC implementation here. Since it didn't actually convey those feelings to me, there was no RP damage. The worst I could say is that it was a dull feature and a waste of dev time, but that's hardly a big deal since it was also cheap and wholly optional
It took me three re-reads to get that first paragraph. For me, the desolation and emptiness of lightly settled worlds in a galaxy humanity was barely beginning to touch was an effective experience. Going into those mines (ignoring the fact that they all looked identical) after fighting through howling winds or climbing the Mako over jagged mountains, finding crashed probes and desiccated corpses of failed exploration, knowing this planet would kill me if I dawdled to look at the rings/moons/whatever all combined to bring home to me the PC's experience.
Then again, I'm one of the very few people that drove all over every planet I could and had fun seeing how steep a mountain I could get my sweet, bouncy Mako over. That doesn't mean I want the same thing for Andromeda. One presumes the galaxy has been explored and settled, meaning they can do a wide variety of things--from barren, hostile environments to teeming cities--in ways the previous games did not, with new species of flora and fauna as well as new architectural aesthetics for the ground and their ships. I would like that feeling of exploration to return strongly, however.
Retour en haut
