154 réponses à ce sujet

[JJ Likeaprayer]

Well,I miss the skin tight armors of ME1,to me that's what space armors should be... skin tight and light and sexy. ME1 has this unique beauty that has been vanished in ME2&3...I can't name it,but it's misty and attractive.

[Killroy]

The thing I don't like about ME2 armor is that checkerboard texture they used. You see it when the camera is close.

 

That's supposed to be woven carbon fiber. Actual woven carbon fiber has a depth to it, between the weaves, and is coated in a resin but it doesn't look right in the game.

[N7M]

So... it's good for the series if the outfits don't look like real tech so we can all stop thinking about tech? Credo quia absurdum?

No, Alan that isn't what was being said. 

[Eromenos]

Got my support.

 

I loved ME1's female combatants wearing actual armor. Female armor may have been fitted a little differently than that of the male counterparts' but the differences were almost insignificant. It was great to have the obvious intention for both to retain utility and protection with freaking modesty while still flattering their respective figures. The atmosphere and environments were beautiful scifi renderings along with the music. ME1's aesthetics were perfection, marred only by PC bugs.

 

ME2 was where it went straight to hell. Catsuits, high heels, long un-gathered hair, cleavage, and a Normandy with ghastly interior fluorescent lights. Nope, nope, nope nope, nope, nope, nope, nope, nope. As the OP said, ME2 was generic at best(!) and while I give credit to ME3 for darkening the atmosphere again and going with "less" visual sexism than ME2 ...it still fell short of ME1's total package. This is not to say that ME3's aesthetics were bad; I loved the overall feel of ME3 especially the so-called "closets" throughout the Citadel. It's just that ME1 happened to be better.

 

I do not like the bulky mech armors this series keeps delving into. MEA's previews are not helping.

 

My personal aesthetics rankings:

 

ME1 is Perfection

ME3 is Gorgeous

ME2 is Shite by far

[N7M]

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.

 

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.

 

More detail isn't necessarily bad since it could improve the experience by conveying the technological state of the setting. Layering could work provided it still contains and properly conveys the motif set at the beginning of the work. While there may have been technical limitations, time limitations or lazy design in ME1 all the armors contained a common visual element. In ME2 and ME3 the armors overall looked nice and detailed and contained this motif but in general conveyed a sense of hyper-masculinity. Which, that ME:A armor in the op is made even more apparent along with it degrading the original motif in all the layering. 

 

One of the benefits of leaving certain visual elements of advanced technologies to the imagination is that it allows the audience to indulge their imagination in the setting. We know of the effect of medigel by the results of its use not its animation. 

[falconlord5]

Wait... darker lighting in ME1? Not on my rig, unless you're only talking about the Normandy.

 

Consistently darker. And a hell of a lot softer, too.

 

ME2, the by-far-worst-of-the-three-in-terms-of-atmosphere, is nothing but bright, glaring, harsh orange light. I live in Alberta; I get that kind of light every day. I don't need it in my games, thank you.

[RoboticWater]

More detail isn't necessarily bad since it could improve the experience by conveying the technological state of the setting. Layering could work provided it still contains and properly conveys the motif set at the beginning of the work. While there may have been technical limitations, time limitations or lazy design in ME1 all the armors contained a common visual element. In ME2 and ME3 the armors overall looked nice and detailed and contained this motif but in general conveyed a sense of hyper-masculinity. Which, that ME:A armor in the op is made even more apparent along with it degrading the original motif in all the layering.

I'm not really seeing the hyper-masculinity in ME2-3's armors. There's extra grooves around the abdomen and they're overall a bit more angular, but they're not exactly Gears of War stye. And while I can understand that complaint against ME:A's armor, I still consider neither its design nor its departure from the original's design fundamentally bad. I think each game's aesthetic works well in their own right, but I think the increase in detail has only made me enjoy the look of each successive game even more.
 

One of the benefits of leaving certain visual elements of advanced technologies to the imagination is that it allows the audience to indulge their imagination in the setting. We know of the effect of medigel by the results of its use not its animation.

I just don't see the benefit of leaving mundane elements unexplained. I don't gain a unique feeling of euphoria or wonder when I ponder the exact nature of medigel; I just use it and get on with my life. There are plenty of times where limiting description improves the setting such as the quarians' faces or the origins of the reapers. The mystery and the imagining of the solution is inherently interesting because the possibility space is large and the implications are both compelling and varied.

 

In the case of armor and medigel, there is no benefit. We have an exact idea of how they're used, so our imaginations are not only limited, but effectively pointless. It doesn't matter whether medigel is made of stem cells or special bacteria or whether the armor is made of nanotech; their results are fixed, and my considering these possibilities doesn't enhance the experience much either because all the possibilities are just vaguely similar science tehcnobabble, not complex motives or awesome mental images.

[Drakoriz]

My personal aesthetics rankings:

 

ME1 is Perfection

ME3 is Gorgeous

ME2 is Shite by far

 

i know this is your opinion, but i fail to see it.

 

I mean ME1 is by far the worst when it come to aesthetics, just bc the limitation of the tecnology use to make the game. The lack of details on the ME 1 is alarming when u compare it to 2 and not to speak with 3.

 

Anyway opinions. =P

 

For me ME have move in a nice direction improving each time, it happen with every Bioware game i play, so im really exited to see where ME A go next.

[N7M]

I'm not really seeing the hyper-masculinity in ME2-3's armors. There's extra grooves around the abdomen and they're overall a bit more angular, but they're not exactly Gears of War stye. And while I can understand that complaint against ME:A's armor, I still consider neither its design nor its departure from the original's design fundamentally bad. I think each game's aesthetic works well in their own right, but I think the increase in detail has only made me enjoy the look of each successive game even more.
 

I just don't see the benefit of leaving mundane elements unexplained. I don't gain a unique feeling of euphoria or wonder when I ponder the exact nature of medigel; I just use it and get on with my life. There are plenty of times where limiting description improves the setting such as the quarians' faces or the origins of the reapers. The mystery and the imagining of the solution is inherently interesting because the possibility space is large and the implications are both compelling and varied.

 

In the case of armor and medigel, there is no benefit. We have an exact idea of how they're used, so our imaginations are not only limited, but effectively pointless. It doesn't matter whether medigel is made of stem cells or special bacteria or whether the armor is made of nanotech; their results are fixed, and my considering these possibilities doesn't enhance the experience much either because all the possibilities are just vaguely similar science tehcnobabble, not complex motives or awesome mental images.

 

The armors for ME2&3 weren't as bad as Gears of War and are not nearly as offensive to the aesthetic as departing from the motif as that ME:A armor does. The motif is still in the logo of Mass Effect and been prominent in most, if not all, of the environments and models of the game so far. The gentle arch of the horizon which could be dusk or dawn. Symbolizing the end of humanity or a new day. 

 

Appreciation of imagining the possibility of any layer of unknowns is in the beholder.  Some appreciate science fiction that explains very little like Under the Skin and others hate it.

In terms of medigel, the reference to active imagination was in how leaving its use unanimated puts the responsibility for visualizing the repairing of flesh and bone on the audience. It isn't mandatory nor would such an activity appeal to all but it is suggested to the subconscious, which helps support suspension of disbelief(which isn't a conscious act), and is a part of the negative space in the aesthetic that the subconscious perceives.

[In Exile]

Consistently darker. And a hell of a lot softer, too.

 

ME2, the by-far-worst-of-the-three-in-terms-of-atmosphere, is nothing but bright, glaring, harsh orange light. I live in Alberta; I get that kind of light every day. I don't need it in my games, thank you.

 

I just don't see it. ME2 had a lot of orange light, but ME1 was defined by bright blue. 

[AlanC9]

Consistently darker. And a hell of a lot softer, too.

Again, not on my PC. What were you playing on?

As In Exile says, ME1 had a lot of bright blue. ME2 had more orange, as a rule, and ME3 reverted to the ME1 palette somewhat. Though ME2 did have a lot of crappy bloom effects. Anyone else remember when lens flare all over the place was a thing? Whenever the tech guys cook up a new effect the devs go overboard with it for a while.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

I thought ME1 was the most colorful of the three, in terms of lighting.

[SwobyJ]

A 'full return'? Nope. Hell no, even. But:

 

1)I think every game should refer to ME1 as a touchstone. Always remember where you came from. So far, material from MEA (see: that female in armor in the trailer) seems to indicate this.

 

2)I think MEA seems to be presenting itself as at least a soft reboot. As such, it should refer to ME1 aesthetics more than ME2 and ME3 and maybe at least some future ME games would.

 

And...

 

3)Just as ME1 is remembered, ME2 and ME3 should not be forgotten. Both had good parts that should carry on to MEA.

 

4)Its a new game, bring on some new stuff.

 

 

Basically, I want Mass Effect: Next Generation. As such, I damn well want a lot of ME1 in it, but I'm also not hooked on everything staying. Stay true to the series. For example: Give me a familiar Mako, but don't give me THE ME1 Mako, and don't be restricted to 'Mako-ness' (hell, I'd even love if its revealed we can change the vehicle or even adjust it so much that its pretty much not anything like the ME1 Mako).

 

One thing I want carried over is the creepy emptiness of ME1. No, its not that deep horror or dread that the debate earlier in this thread discussed, but I would love a 'more ME3-ish, more open explorative and interesting' version of stuff we went through in ME1. Neo-Uncharted Worlds hold a lot of promise if shown right. Those rocks in the distance could instead be unique features we could optionally head to and present our eyes with a beautiful darkness, or haunting ruins, or dreadful implications (even just the visuals communicating a history, something we slightly got with Prothian ruins as early as ME1).

I don't want this creepy emptiness to be all there is; I want some grungy and sterile stuff from ME2, and battlefields and ominous settings of ME3... but yes, bring some ME1 for sure, more than was even in ME2-ME3 (arguably). This is in patterns, colors, shapes, design choices, all of it.

 

I've seen someeee indications that MEA may very well fill in some stuff that Bioware couldn't fully address as much as they wanted to in ME3 (or even ME2 for that matter). So I'd love to see a mission with the Thorian(s) back and expanded more than ever, instead of their diminishing role in the trilogy. Imagine how it would look on Frostbite? Or many of them in the same place?

[yolobastien6412]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really hope they look back at concept art they did for the trilogy, especially from ME1.

 

I really like the armour system in ME1, and since the devs said that our armour in ME:A will be modular or layered, I am hoping for the possibility of light, medium and heavy armour. I want the light armour to be inspired by the ME1 light armours, whereas the heavy armour can be the bulky suit we see from the ME:A concept, and medium can be something similar to ME2, all the while being able to have weird combinations (since it's modular). I also liked that the squadmates in ME1 had armour, or combat suits on, as well as helmets in dangerous environments. ME2 had breather masks... really? Since this game will have a lot of exploring, I hope they take that into account, because it really breaks me away from the immersion when we are in outer space and someone is in high heels.

 

I think this is an unpopular opinion, but I kind of liked the idea of omni-gel in ME1, although I admit it was not implemented in an interesting way. If Bioware manages to implement it in the new game, but in a realistic and practical way (maybe only engineers can create it or apply it to repair armours or the mako), I am sure it would be a nice nod to the 1st game.

 

In terms of weapons, I would rather go with the ME2 and ME3 aesthetics since the models were actually different and looked like unique weapons. ME1 weapons were basically the same model with different colours and damage.

 

In terms of alien designs, I really enjoyed the Rachni and the whole mood that went along with that mission on Noveria. Hell, I was terrified of them in my first playthrough, them just so suddenly appearing out of vents and stuff. 

 

I also preferred the Citadel in ME1 over the other two games. Maybe it is because of being able to walk freely from play to place, no loadscreens, just elevators. Although the elevators did take for ever at times, I find it much more immersive than a load screen (although elevators of the future should just take 1 second). I'm sure that could work in ME:A. Just have you and your squadmates get on a shuttle or whatever, and make them freeze in place for a few seconds, and when the shuttle doors open, you are at the next destination or whatever. But for story-related travels, cut-scenes would be better.

 

Ok I got so off-topic there

[Han Shot First]

As far as armor design goes, I'd prefer Andromeda's to sort of be a mix of how it was done in ME1 and ME3. 

 

I liked that in Mass Effect 1, all characters looked like they had practical armor that would provide protection from both hostile environments and gunfire. I also liked that none of the armor designs looked like they were too bulky. Characters shouldn't look like walking tanks. On the other hand there wasn't a lot of variety with ME1's armors and most were identical except for a color swap. 

 

In ME3 I liked that all squadmates had their own unique appearance and that no armor set was nearly identical to another. 

 

With Andromeda I'd hope squadmates would retain a unique appearance that fits their background or personality, while having armor that both looks practical and isn't ridiculously oversized. 

 

Oh, and helmets. Every armor set should come with a helmet that can be toggled on and off.

 

Companion armor being as customizable as Shepard's in ME3 would be great, though I don't expect that. It would be a nice bonus though. 

[SwobyJ]

I can see both companion armor and MP character armor be as customizable (or nearly so) as the main character's. They can still include and/or sell unique companion armor 'sets' if they wish.

[falconlord5]

I just don't see it. ME2 had a lot of orange light, but ME1 was defined by bright blue. 

 

Defined by blue, yes. Bright? Not on my rig or either of my T.V.'s (one standard, two HD).

 

Always a very dark blue in ME1. Except for those scenes with Kaidan, which had that godawful lens flare. I pretty much stopped talking to him after that.

 

As for ME2? I had to cycle through every one of my T.V.'s colour options at least five or six times to kill that unholy orange glare even just a little bit. Didn't work.

[AlanC9]

Maybe this is a console thing?

[In Exile]

Maybe. I guess the Normandy was darker? But we go back to blue light for it.

[Il Divo]

^If it helps any, I played ME1 on console and the Normandy was pretty dark, especially compared to ME2's. 

[Helios969]

I would say I am largely indifferent to aesthetics.  ME1/2/3 is all the same to me so long as gameplay is ME3 evolved and the story doesn't suffer the same sort of disconnect DAI does.

[Chealec]

... I liked the level of film grain.

[falconlord5]

Again, not on my PC. What were you playing on?

As In Exile says, ME1 had a lot of bright blue. ME2 had more orange, as a rule, and ME3 reverted to the ME1 palette somewhat. Though ME2 did have a lot of crappy bloom effects. Anyone else remember when lens flare all over the place was a thing? Whenever the tech guys cook up a new effect the devs go overboard with it for a while.

 

One PC with an ATI card (never again), and an X-Box 360 hooked up to three different T.V.'s: one SD, two HD. All through out, ME1 had consistently darker, softer and just generally better lighting.

 

ME2 was, as you say, riddled with horrible bloom effects. And harsh bright orange lighting everywhere. It was like looking at Calgary on a summer's day.

[AlanC9]

No, Alan that isn't what was being said.

Of course it wasn't . My point was more that I can't tell how what you actually are saying differs from what I said.

[AlanC9]

One PC with an ATI card (never again), and an X-Box 360 hooked up to three different T.V.'s: one SD, two HD. All through out, ME1 had consistently darker, softer and just generally better lighting.

ME2 was, as you say, riddled with horrible bloom effects. And harsh bright orange lighting everywhere. It was like looking at Calgary on a summer's day.

Having never seen either Calgary or any ME games on a console. I'll defer to you on those points. And I had good results with my 6670.

I think we're just using different terminology here. I wouldn't call bright white rooms with diffuse lighting dark," myself.