29 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

Frostbite 3 is one of the premiere and most advanced gaming engines on the face of the Earth. Not only is it capable of generating massive, detailed open worlds with photo-realistic visual fidelity, it also is capable of incredibly realistic, dynamic weather systems as well as environmental destruction.

 

BioWare Edmonton had intended for such micro and macro destruction to be incorporated into Dragon Age Inquisition. Due to time constraints, priorities, and the nature of game development, much of these features were either cut or severely hindered in the final build of the game.

 

Considering there has been a working build of MEA since late 2013 and BioWare Montreal has the full power of Frostbite 3 at its disposal, I see no reason to not give us a fully, immersive, destructive, and visceral experience unlike anything Mass Effect has ever produced. We know this kind of destruction has been possible with Frostbite ever since Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and we have also seen the power of Battlefield 4's Levolution.

 

It's time for BioWare to harness this power and not only enhance Mass Effect Andromeda on a graphical level, but also a gameplay level. Imagine being able to destroy anything from a small barricade to massive fortifications. Imagine having the choice and free will to evolve and manipulate the experience how you want and when you want. We aren't just playing in a static box that is unable to change anymore. We are immersed in realistic, believable, and dynamic worlds that should not only shape us, but allow us to shape them as well.

 

This kind of experience should not only be accessible in a linear, railroaded main story, but should be at the forefront of the experience we can shape at any time throughout the game. Of course, there will always be choices and consequences to how you play, and destroying an entire city or colony should not be without repercussions. Imagine just how much this could truly revolutionize the Mass Effect experience, and I think you'll agree with me that BioWare should use the full power of Frostbite 3 and not hold back.

 

This is a must for the next generation Mass Effect experience.

[Killroy]

No thanks. Seems superfluous to me.

[SlottsMachine]

Sure, but its not very high on my list.

[Sartoz]

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Yes, I agree, it is a premiere world class planet builder engine incapable of generating even reasonable hair styles.

 

As to harnessing its full power for environmental destruction, I say why bother with the small stuff. Just carpet bomb from orbit. I mean, who needs jet packs, biotics or hand-to-hand combat?

 

I expect some doors or walls to be blown up but no more.

[Cyonan]

It's one of those things that my response to is pretty much: It would be cool to see, but I'm not going to be broken up by it if it's not in there.

 

And in MP if they are sticking to smaller maps that we hang around in for 11 waves, it shouldn't be there so that our cover isn't completely gone by wave 5.

[RoboticWater]

It's time for BioWare to harness this power and not only enhance Mass Effect Andromeda on a graphical level, but also a gameplay level. Imagine being able to destroy anything from a small barricade to massive fortifications. Imagine having the choice and free will to evolve and manipulate the experience how you want and when you want. We aren't just playing in a static box that is unable to change anymore. We are immersed in realistic, believable, and dynamic worlds that should not only shape us, but allow us to shape them as well.

Whenever I hear about mechanics like destruction, they're always accompanied by these kinds of buzzword laden speeches that make me question whether the people espousing them actually know how that mechanic would actually fit into the gameplay loop. Having read the whole OP, I can only see references to Battlefield. How would this fit in to Mass Effect's gameplay? How does this improve upon Mass Effect's existing features and goals?

 

Dynamic levels are nice, but how dynamic are we talking? Everything can't be destructible, because we'll always need some cover to get behind, and we wouldn't want to trivialize combat by letting the player eliminate all the enemy's cover either. It would probably benefit the level design as well as the processing load to just have a few bits of breakable cover and optional scripted events.

 

How might this affect story sequences if we can just blow through walls? Will we need to start coating certain things with indestructium? How much of Mass Effect's world can even be destroyed when we're in a future built on metal?

 

You talk about consequences, but do you seriously expect BioWare to account for all the things the player can destroy (as well as the various degrees that something could be destroyed)? And if they did have those kinds of consequences, why would we need Levolution^TM specifically? Presumably Joe Shmoe colonist is only going to worry about our actions if we destroy something the size of a building, so why not save the processing power and just make destroying an optional, but pre-rendered event?

 

I like destruction as much as the next guy, but unless a game's mechanics are significantly improved by it (i.e. Red Faction, Rainbow 6: Siege), I think the processing power is best used elsewhere.

[Revan Reborn]

No thanks. Seems superfluous to me.

Destruction oftentimes is superfluous, which is what I am not in favor of. Games such as Red Faction and more recently Rainbow Six Siege are great examples of how destruction can be used for the benefit of gameplay. What would be superfluous would be having pre-rendered destruction to attempt to give the illusion of a dynamic world when it is really not one.

 

Sure, but its not very high on my list.

That's fine, but I could see actual, dynamic destruction evolving the gameplay experience on a variety of levels. It would be a brand new game and we would have to adapt to how we play Mass Effect. It wouldn't just be a linear third person shooter in cover anymore.

 

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Yes, I agree, it is a premiere world class planet builder engine incapable of generating even reasonable hair styles.

 

As to harnessing its full power for environmental destruction, I say why bother with the small stuff. Just carpet bomb from orbit. I mean, who needs jet packs, biotics or hand-to-hand combat?

 

I expect some doors or walls to be blown up but no more.

Frostbite 3 was built to create massive and detailed open world spaces with photo-realistic visual fidelity. It was not built to simulate realistic hair, as it was originally only intended for the Battlefield franchise. That could change if the engineers at Frostbite 3 decide better hair is more of a priority. There's not much BioWare can do about that as they just merely use the engine.

 

That would be an incredibly underwhelming use of the technology BioWare has at its disposal. BioWare needs to make a statement of why this is the next generation of Mass Effect. Prettier graphics and bigger worlds aren't enough to make people truly think this is something new. Destruction could be a great feature to truly propel Mass Effect in new directions.

 

It's one of those things that my response to is pretty much: It would be cool to see, but I'm not going to be broken up by it if it's not in there.

 

And in MP if they are sticking to smaller maps that we hang around in for 11 waves, it shouldn't be there so that our cover isn't completely gone by wave 5.

Even if cover was gone, BioWare could easily implement in an ability that would create mobile cover. That would certainly be nice and a better system than what ME1-3 had, which was running and looking for cover and hoping that was a place you could go into cover. Destructible environments could potentially even provide new opportunities, such as using debris as potential cover. That really is up to BioWare and how they wanted to tackle the feature.

 

Whenever I hear about mechanics like destruction, they're always accompanied by these kinds of buzzword laden speeches that make me question whether the people espousing them actually know how that mechanic would actually fit into the gameplay loop. Having read the whole OP, I can only see references to Battlefield. How would this fit in to Mass Effect's gameplay? How does this improve upon Mass Effect's existing features and goals?

 

Dynamic levels are nice, but how dynamic are we talking? Everything can't be destructible, because we'll always need some cover to get behind, and we wouldn't want to trivialize combat by letting the player eliminate all the enemy's cover either. It would probably benefit the level design as well as the processing load to just have a few bits of breakable cover and optional scripted events.

 

How might this affect story sequences if we can just blow through walls? Will we need to start coating certain things with indestructium? How much of Mass Effect's world can even be destroyed when we're in a future built on metal?

 

You talk about consequences, but do you seriously expect BioWare to account for all the things the player can destroy (as well as the various degrees that something could be destroyed)? And if they did have those kinds of consequences, why would we need Levolution^TM specifically? Presumably Joe Shmoe colonist is only going to worry about our actions if we destroy something the size of a building, so why not save the processing power and just make destroying an optional, but pre-rendered event?

 

I like destruction as much as the next guy, but unless a game's mechanics are significantly improved by it (i.e. Red Faction, Rainbow 6: Siege), I think the processing power is best used elsewhere.

Mass Effect, as it has been established by the first three games, is a linear third person cover shooter. It has minor squad gameplay features, but for the most part the game is pretty straightforward and simple. Destruction of this caliber would take the experience to a whole new level and add a lot more depth to MEA. My question to you is how would this not make Mass Effect's gameplay better?

 

Mass Effect is in the far future. It would be fairly simple for BioWare to create a mobile cover feature if it chose to do so. Not to mention, I'm not even suggesting you'd have the firepower to even create that amount of destruction most of the time. Perhaps if the mako has weapons, that would make sense. Otherwise, unless you have a nuke in your arsenal, standard weaponry shouldn't be able to level a city, let alone one building. Unless there are explosive canisters or some other means of crippling the foundation, this would allow BioWare to limit destruction and when it would be most appropriate.

 

Story sequences are a matter of game design. Indestructible structures are only generally necessary due to poor game design and the developers not providing alternatives. If the the story is crafted in a way to accommodate destruction, then this is a nonissue. To my knowledge, MEA isn't likely going to have a lot of sprawling metropolises as we are exploring a new galaxy with allegedly over 100 planets to explore. Given what we have seen of concept of trailers, many of these planets are likely not going to be well settled and not have much of an infrastructure to start.

 

If we have this amount of destruction, then Levolution isn't necessary. I mentioned the feature to merely give an understanding of what type of destruction is actually possible with Frostbite 3. We know for a fact Frostbite 3 is capable of complete destruction as Bad Company 2 did it in the past and DICE has stated they purposely limit destruction for fear of breaking gameplay. This isn't the same issue with MEA as it's a single player game whereas Battlefield is predominantly a multiplayer game.

 

As far as consequences, that wouldn't be that big of an issue based on what we know about the game. Humans are looking to colonize and start over in Andromeda. It would be practical to have some sort of diplomacy system in which you can gain affection of others species in the community or lose it. Obviously, if you were to cause massive destruction to a particular world or a species' civilization, you would lose affection and they would be unwilling to trade or assist humans or any of the other MW species.

 

Our only limitation is our imagination. To what degree this would work would be entirely up to what MEA's game philosophy was and whether that would be a direction BioWare Montreal would want to take the game. Given this emphasis on exploration and large open worlds with MEA, destructible environments is a rational next step. It's already a tool in Frostbite 3 and has been for a long time. Why not use it?

[RoboticWater]

Mass Effect, as it has been established by the first three games, is a linear third person cover shooter. It has minor squad gameplay features, but for the most part the game is pretty straightforward and simple. Destruction of this caliber would take the experience to a whole new level and add a lot more depth to MEA. My question to you is how would this not make Mass Effect's gameplay better?

When adding features, the burden of proof is on the new feature, not the existing mechanics. As it is, it's generally a good idea to make a game elegant, i.e. maximize the amount of depth the game has while minimizing the amount of mechanics. Not only do less mechanics make a game less confusing, they allow the developers to focus their time more on polishing existing mechanics rather than fleshing out new ones. Just because we can go open world doesn't mean every game should.
 
Describe this "whole new level." What does that mean? Yes, dynamic levels would get us to move more and adjust our flanking tactics, but that's about it. You can achieve similar results with scripted objects and static levels for a fraction of the cost.
 

Mass Effect is in the far future. It would be fairly simple for BioWare to create a mobile cover feature if it chose to do so. Not to mention, I'm not even suggesting you'd have the firepower to even create that amount of destruction most of the time. Perhaps if the mako has weapons, that would make sense. Otherwise, unless you have a nuke in your arsenal, standard weaponry shouldn't be able to level a city, let alone one building. Unless there are explosive canisters or some other means of crippling the foundation, this would allow BioWare to limit destruction and when it would be most appropriate.

Then why Levolution^TM? I'm all for (limited) breakable cover, but if we're not breaking down buildings, then what's the use of such a grandiose technology?
 
How would mobile cover work? Can we just place it anywhere? Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of cover in the first place if we can just hunker down wherever we want?
 

Story sequences are a matter of game design. Indestructible structures are only generally necessary due to poor game design and the developers not providing alternatives. If the the story is crafted in a way to accommodate destruction, then this is a nonissue. To my knowledge, MEA isn't likely going to have a lot of sprawling metropolises as we are exploring a new galaxy with allegedly over 100 planets to explore. Given what we have seen of concept of trailers, many of these planets are likely not going to be well settled and not have much of an infrastructure to start.

That's just the thing. BioWare have to "accommodate destruction." That means that they have to spend the time making these alternatives or altering their existing storytelling style. Those aren't necessarily bad things, but in the time it takes to make one destructible level, BioWare could have made 2-3 more static ones. If I were designing this game, you would have to convince me that these changes are worth the effort. For a cinematic BioWare game, I just don't think they would be.
 

If we have this amount of destruction, then Levolution isn't necessary. I mentioned the feature to merely give an understanding of what type of destruction is actually possible with Frostbite 3. We know for a fact Frostbite 3 is capable of complete destruction as Bad Company 2 did it in the past and DICE has stated they purposely limit destruction for fear of breaking gameplay. This isn't the same issue with MEA as it's a single player game whereas Battlefield is predominantly a multiplayer game.

Actaully, complete destruction might be more of a problem in SP than it is in MP, at least from an AI perspective. You'd also be giving up the benefits of tightly controlled level design. A designer can completely change the dynamic of an encounter by changing a level's layout. If the player can just plow right through that design, then they might lose the pacing and challenge inherent to that area's construction.
 

As far as consequences, that wouldn't be that big of an issue based on what we know about the game. Humans are looking to colonize and start over in Andromeda. It would be practical to have some sort of diplomacy system in which you can gain affection of others species in the community or lose it. Obviously, if you were to cause massive destruction to a particular world or a species' civilization, you would lose affection and they would be unwilling to trade or assist humans or any of the other MW species.

I get that, but not only are you now putting the burden on BioWare to incorporate reactions to destruction, you're potentially asking players to play delicately in an action shooter game. That just doesn't seem like a fun idea. I'm not saying that dynamic couldn't work at all, but I'd want to see a proof of concept first.
 

Our only limitation is our imagination. To what degree this would work would be entirely up to what MEA's game philosophy was and whether that would be a direction BioWare Montreal would want to take the game. Given this emphasis on exploration and large open worlds with MEA, destructible environments is a rational next step. It's already a tool in Frostbite 3 and has been for a long time. Why not use it?

Our only limitation is our imaginations, yes. As well as time, money, processing power, AI capabilities, and mechanical viability. While destruction is cool, I just can't imagine that it's practical.

I also don't know how destruction is the "rational next step." I actually can't think of a game with destruction features that also featured strong exploration. Maybe Red Faction Guerrilla, but the exploration in that game wasn't too great.

[SKAR]

Frostbite 3 is one of the premiere and most advanced gaming engines on the face of the Earth. Not only is it capable of generating massive, detailed open worlds with photo-realistic visual fidelity, it also is capable of incredibly realistic, dynamic weather systems as well as environmental destruction.

BioWare Edmonton had intended for such micro and macro destruction to be incorporated into Dragon Age Inquisition. Due to time constraints, priorities, and the nature of game development, much of these features were either cut or severely hindered in the final build of the game.

Considering there has been a working build of MEA since late 2013 and BioWare Montreal has the full power of Frostbite 3 at its disposal, I see no reason to not give us a fully, immersive, destructive, and visceral experience unlike anything Mass Effect has ever produced. We know this kind of destruction has been possible with Frostbite ever since Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and we have also seen the power of Battlefield 4's Levolution.

It's time for BioWare to harness this power and not only enhance Mass Effect Andromeda on a graphical level, but also a gameplay level. Imagine being able to destroy anything from a small barricade to massive fortifications. Imagine having the choice and free will to evolve and manipulate the experience how you want and when you want. We aren't just playing in a static box that is unable to change anymore. We are immersed in realistic, believable, and dynamic worlds that should not only shape us, but allow us to shape them as well.

This kind of experience should not only be accessible in a linear, railroaded main story, but should be at the forefront of the experience we can shape at any time throughout the game. Of course, there will always be choices and consequences to how you play, and destroying an entire city or colony should not be without repercussions. Imagine just how much this could truly revolutionize the Mass Effect experience, and I think you'll agree with me that BioWare should use the full power of Frostbite 3 and not hold back.

This is a must for the next generation Mass Effect experience.

I agree. They better not hold back. It is truly a new revolution in gaming.

[Killroy]

I agree. They better not hold back. It is truly a new revolution in gaming.

 

Environmental destruction is nothing new or revolutionary. It was a gimmick more than 10 years ago. 

[Gileadan]

I like your optimism, OP. I for one would be glad if they got the hitboxes and melee gameplay right this time. Frostbite 3 seems an awfully big bite for BioWare to chew.

[Remix-General Aetius]

Enviromental destruction was already somewhat part of ME1 but it was taken out for some reason. There was destructible cover in the early demo footage of Ilos. It makes combat even more fun and makes for interesting gameplay.

 

Yeah, sign me up.

[Revan Reborn]

<snip>

You are comparing apples to oranges. Destruction isn't some sort of complex feature that would have to be reworked into the Mass Effect formula to make sense. Destruction has been in gaming for a long time and in many forms. You are also not considering how many avenues destruction could actually be used. It's not just to change the scope of the environment, but it could be used for combat and strategy as well. BioWare clearly already has an understanding of this as we had situations in DAI where we could collapse a bridge or other obstacle in the environment to affect the gameplay and change the encounter.

 

Open world is an entirely different beast as BioWare games are heavily driven on linear and scripted gameplay, which is as far from open world games as you can get. Destructibility is something that has always been there but was limited due to hardware. That limitation is no longer an issue and the possibilities provide more positives than negatives. This is about adding more opportunities to the experience, not complicating the game. What is that complicated about destruction anyway?

 

Do you really think having mobile cover would cripple the experience as it already is? As it stands, you are forced to find somewhere to go into cover to attack the enemy. Why would it matter if we could create temporary cover? It provides more opportunities and gives more variety in gameplay. Why should we be subjected to the limited amount of cover BioWare provides? That makes the game more linear and structured. We already know with MEA that BioWare wants to make it much more expansive. Holding on to antiquated cover philosophies seems like something that would logically be discarded.

 

Quantity isn't necessarily better than quality. I'd rather have 20 dense and interesting planets rather than 100 generic and shallow planets. Right now, I'm not convinced that the alleged 100 planets we can explore are going to be that interesting or really worth he time investment. One dynamic planet in which we have the capacity to actually shape the landscape is far better than just one static planet in which we can't shape anything in my eyes.

 

Why would this be an issue for AI? It's not as if AI were that challenging or smart to start in Mass Effect. I fail to see how a more comprehensive destruction system would somehow hinder a feature already severely lacking. More options doesn't necessarily mean game breaking.

 

Play delicately? It's going to take more than a few rounds of an assault rifle to topple an entire city... There should be consequences if you are clearly grossly negligent and purposely want to create wanton chaos. You act as if all structures will be made out of straw and can collapse to a strong gust of wind. Destroying will definitely be a choice and will require effort.

 

Frostbite 3 is already capable of this feature. There's nothing impractical or unrealistic about it. I think you are far too cynical and critical to even give the feature an actual chance. You might be surprised how well it could potentially compliment the gameplay.

 

My point is games that generally encourage exploration have large, dynamic worlds of which are filled with points of interests. They also generally have day/night cycles, weather systems, and other opportunities to keep the gameplay fresh, unpredictable, and engaging. Destructibility would merely be a logical step in terms of that dynamic environment to further reinforce on many things exploration encourages.

 

I agree. They better not hold back. It is truly a new revolution in gaming.

Exactly. Graphics, alone, are not enough to convince anyone that games have evolved. The gameplay also has to evolve, and VR isn't that evolution.

 

Environmental destruction is nothing new or revolutionary. It was a gimmick more than 10 years ago. 

Hardware limitations have made environmental destruction a "gimmick." That's no longer an excuse. We know the technology is there and that the feature is possible. BioWare just needs to execute and bring true dynamic destruction.

[Revan Reborn]

I like your optimism, OP. I for one would be glad if they got the hitboxes and melee gameplay right this time. Frostbite 3 seems an awfully big bite for BioWare to chew.

In fairness, DAI was BioWare's first Frostbite 3 game and they had to make it work on five different platforms. With MEA only being on next gen hardware and BioWare now having a better understanding of how Frostbite 3 works, I think it's fair that they can be more rigorous and take more risks with the engine.

 

Enviromental destruction was already somewhat part of ME1 but it was taken out for some reason. There was destructible cover in the early demo footage of Ilos. It makes combat even more fun and makes for interesting gameplay.

 

Yeah, sign me up.

Yep. A lot of features were supposed to be in ME1 that were unfortunately cut for a variety of reasons. MEA in many ways is the spiritual successor to that game as it's bringing back features ME1 was supposed to have or did have. Destruction, in my opinion, would be a nice addition to further build upon the great foundation ME already has.

[Killroy]

Hardware limitations have made environmental destruction a "gimmick." That's no longer an excuse. We know the technology is there and that the feature is possible. BioWare just needs to execute and bring true dynamic destruction.

How does better hardware make it less gimmicky? It's still a cosmetic feature with no impact on character or narrative.

[Remix-General Aetius]

How does better hardware make it less gimmicky? It's still a cosmetic feature with no impact on character or narrative.

 

Look further up, Angry Grandpa. "makes combat more fun"

[Killroy]

Look further up, Angry Grandpa. "makes combat more fun"

A millions things could make combat more fun. That doesn't mean they're not gimmicks. And it doesn't mean they're worthwhile, fitting additions.

[Quarian Master Race]

And in MP if they are sticking to smaller maps that we hang around in for 11 waves, it shouldn't be there so that our cover isn't completely gone by wave 5.

That's basically how BC2 went. Every map looked like Stalingrad circa 1943 by the halfway point of the round. It was awesome, but I can see why later Battlefields toned it down a bit.

[TheN7Penguin]

BC2 looked like the surface of the moon at the end of a game...

[Laughing_Man]

I think that the idea is actually interesting. Maybe we don't need the destruction levels of Bad Company 2, but partial destruction of environments could be awesome.

 

It will give actual impact to grenades, biotics, tech explosions, etc.

[Revan Reborn]

BC2 looked like the surface of the moon at the end of a game...

I can understand toning destruction down for Battlefield due to the nature of it being a massive multiplayer shooter. Mass Effect is predominantly a single player game with a multiplayer add-on. In the single player experience, having that level of destruction could have consequences and provide interesting choices for players. It wouldn't just be wanton destruction with no point such as BC2.

 

I think that the idea is actually interesting. Maybe we don't need the destruction levels of Bad Company 2, but partial destruction of environments could be awesome.

 

It will give actual impact to grenades, biotics, tech explosions, etc.

It would just be nice to have a reactive world in which isn't entirely static and dead. If there is a battle going on and weapons of mass destruction are being used, the world should reflect that. There are no excuses for BioWare to not include micro and macro destruction. The engine already supports it.

[SKAR]

Environmental destruction is nothing new or revolutionary. It was a gimmick more than 10 years ago.

Not talking about environmental destruction buzzkillington. I'm talking about the beauty that will be Mass Effect Andromeda.

[Indomito]

I like the idea, if it´s related to the mission/gamplay/story.

Not just for the battlefield style. 

Example, remember the shield generators in me3, you can destroy them. I expect an improve on that mechanic.

But as someone else said it´s not very high on my list of priority things.

[MyDamnAlterEgo]

It's one of those things that my response to is pretty much: It would be cool to see, but I'm not going to be broken up by it if it's not in there.

 

And in MP if they are sticking to smaller maps that we hang around in for 11 waves, it shouldn't be there so that our cover isn't completely gone by wave 5.

 

Exactly that's why I propose to limit the MP missions by 2, maximum 3 waves, or rather stages (like in Syndicate or Brink) :-))

[Big Bad]

I just hope ME:A has fun gameplay, a good story and great characters.  Anything beyond that is just a bonus.