903 réponses à ce sujet

[RyuGuitarFreak]

friendly bump, also...

Shadesofsiknas wrote...

Id love to see the elevators brought back. They provided a nice touch and depth to the game. Ok at times they could be tedious if you just want to jump into the action. Overall they added more than they took from the game.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. GOD PLEASE, NOT THE ELEVATORS.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 11 juin 2010 - 04:50 .

[finnithe]

The elevators don't have to be the only place for random squad banter. Can't we just have them randomly like in DA?

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well, there already is a lot of "random" banter, whether it is between NPCs, squadmates, or whatever. But the elevator dialog is a different thing entirely. There was a LOT of character background in the elevator sequences in Mass Effect 1. I mean, a surprising amount. If you walked up to random things with different squadmates, they'd have an opinion on it, just as they do in ME2, and of course squadmates will blurt out lines in both games just for giggles.



But the elevator dialog was often very meaningful stuff. Having Wrex and Garrus confront each other about the genophage, for instance. These bits of dialog were like eavesdropping on real conversations that these characters might actually have with each other if they were ever actually together to do it other than trapped on an elevator with you. In a way, elevators helped tell the story outside the story, and you really couldn't avoid it, so you didn't get to miss out on some truly good bits of dialog. In ME2, some of this stuff is still there, but your participation in it is purely optional, and many players might miss the bulk of it. Inter-character dialog that you're not a part of is virtually absent this time around though, as far as squadmates are concerned.

[Foolsfolly]

I'm not even sure how I feel about this idea but what about the KOTOR style of sometimes you get on the ship and two characters are talking. If done in moderation this could be nice. If over done, like in KOTOR 2, then it would get very repetitive in repeat playthroughs.



They already kinda did this with the Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion encounters.

[yuncas]

I think I'm gonna do a runthrough with a soldier on insanity for ME1 and ME2 simultaneously partly for fun and partly because I've run out of ideas for this tpic and I feel like I should contribute something else.

[Scarecrow_ES]

I definitely like those types of sequences, Folly, but really those are largely scripted and story-oriented. They're purposeful. I think we're talking about something more... organic. Not forced, but just... something that happens. Two people trapped in an elevator - do they talk about something to pass the time, listen to a news story, just stand there and look at the view? ME1 did this well. It's more interesting, at the least, than the generic loading screen.

[Scarecrow_ES]

I definitely like those types of sequences, Folly, but really those are largely scripted and story-oriented. They're purposeful. I think we're talking about something more... organic. Not forced, but just... something that happens. Two people trapped in an elevator - do they talk about something to pass the time, listen to a news story, just stand there and look at the view? ME1 did this well. It's more interesting, at the least, than the generic loading screen.

[SilentOne1]

It would be really sweet to see a more cooperative team aspect incorporated into the game. For example, in ME3 there may be an option to eliminate the Genophage using the knowledge of Mordin and the krogan communication of Grunt, and after this, Mordin and Grunt would be almost inseperable, and possibly have a really awesome tag team tech power or something...



Same with Miranda/Jacob, Tali/Legion, etc. and their respective storylines.

[yuncas]

All this is based on the XBox 360 version. I don't have the ability to go into program files and see if my ideas are complety acurate , they are just my observations and inferences.



I've said this already but I guess I'm pretty sure it won't hurt to say it again. I think the Mass Effect 1 persausion sytem is superior to the ME2 system. ME2 sytem seems to force the player to behave a certain way if they expect to resolve future situations in their favor. There can be no middling decision or great variation in actions if you want to have things play out favorably in the future.  I don't know if that is necessarily a flaw in the system or maybe the system and game events not syncing up properly. Overall I think it erodes the freedom for player choice compared with ME1 system. 

ME1 system let the player be in control by way of a point system the they could choose to invest in either way independent of the game's story. If you wanted to be the altruistic self sacrificing saint with one person or a victimizing bastard and a half scumbag with the next guy you could, as long as you invested in the skill. You could even be completely neutral to a person and not expect to be hobbled later  on because of it. 

[Scarecrow_ES]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Are you talking about ME1's Charm/Intimidate skill sets versus ME2's purely action-based system?



You have to keep in mind for ME1 that, in part, the ability to invest more skill points into either the Charm or Intimidate skill trees required that you consistantly acted in such a way as to earn Paragon or Renegade points. You could not unlock the option of applying more skill points into either skill until you acted positively or negatively enough during the story to earn the requisite amount of Paragon or Renegade points to reach the next milestone in that category. If, for instance, a player never chose to act in a Renegade manner during his interactions with the world, he'd never be able to add Intimidate skill points, and thus he'd never be able to resolve situations using Intimidate persuasion options when those came up.



As essense, the ME2 persuasion system takes out the middle step, and has your Charm or Intimidate persuasiveness tied directly to your actions, rather than indirectly through the intermediary skill point system. The result though is effectively the same. The more Paragon or Renegade you act, the more able you'll be to persuade characters using the appropriate persuasive option.



Beyond this, I'm just not clear on the intention of your post.

[Dualfinger]

Bump

[James9749]

All these suggestions are excellent. I would give you a 10/10 in creativity. I also had thoughts about combining the Heat Sink and the Overheat system of Mass Effect 2 and 1 respectivly. I also like the Tech/Biotic power ideas. I like all of your ideas. I had some similar thoughts, but didn't want to voice them. But since I found this, your idea's have my full support.

Modifié par James9749, 20 juin 2010 - 10:23 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

Thanks for the support... stay tuned for an update soon!

[Scarecrow_ES]

and thanks for the bump

[JLBoyyy]

Sorry if you have already, but have you seen Ecael's proposal for squad banter? I think it is very creative and interesting, and i was just wondering if you know about it or have read about it.



Since I don't know how to use the link thingy... I'll just place it here



http://social.biowar...5/index/2656020



BTW I love your ideas so far, and hope to see more

[Scarecrow_ES]

I've just read through it now, JL... I have to say, while I do applaud some of the ideas, what I dislike about them is the forced nature of the interactions. The entire point of having additional crew "banter," if you will, is to have it happen naturally and dynamically. Any scenario that requires that I elect to hear my squadmates talk is in opposition to the natural state of the dialog. The main operation of essentially asking my crewmates to engage in banter is in opposition to the point of the banter in the first place.



Certainly, as Ecael points out, there should be more opportunities for "banter" to occur, and makes a good point for occasions when this could happen, but the manner in which it happens very much defeats the goal of the banter. In service to that goal, ME1 has gotten it mostly right, in having squadmates engage in conversation under natural conditions (ie when stuck in a long elevator ride together). If we allow these sorts of interactions to happen in this natural manner in more situations - for instance as suggested in decontamination sequences, shuttle rides, elevator rides, etc - rather than force them, the effect is more meaningful to the player, and certainly there will be far more opportunities for it.



I think the better solution is the one suggested here... where we bring back "elevator" sequences (to include decontamination, shuttle rides, etc), in the place of the ME2 loading screens, and reintroduce character interactions within those sequences. In the alternative, the player can elect to "skip" these sequences and procede instead to a traditional ME2 loading screen if the player would prefer NOT to deal with the various character interactions and procede with best possible speed to the next game section.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Friendly bump?

[Scarecrow_ES]

thanks again

[Scarecrow_ES]

bump

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

The overall problem with the elevator sections is that they were not part of the core experience. When you look at a franchise like Call of Duty, it has a very lean core experience. You're not sitting idly by in elevators every five minutes, for five minutes.



All one needs to do is go back and play the mission to stop Benezia, especially completing every assignment. Elevators occur so many times over the course of that mission and must be traveled multiple times that it becomes pointless and wasteful. It would have played exactly the same if everything had been on one floor, except a lot faster and less boring.



Elevators add no value to the game, period.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Except that the real world contains elevators, or otherwise methods of travel from place to place that do not involve running there. Sure, the function of level design could reasonably be accomplished on a singe "floor," but such uninspired and unrealistic design is hardly what I would call a benchmark to be followed. Besides, a "lean core experience" is the antithesis of what we expect from RPGs, and Call of Duty's generally poor level design (linear entirely for the purpose of narrowing the action) is not something to be aspired to. If anything, it points to the type of design that exists when a developer has simply not enough imagination to make a less sparce world engaging to the player.



Regardless, "elevator" sequences in ME1 held a decided purpose. They offered a period of isolation during which the next area of the game world could be streamed in, thus allowing players to stay within the game engine, rather than transitioning via loading screen to the next "level." So of course you then have to ask... what is more compelling an experience for the player - long elevator rides filled with sights and sounds, character interactions, backstory, dialog, or other forms of exposition... OR would they prefer a loading screen, during which nothing of consequence happens and players are taken out of the action in a break with the core experience of the game while potentially watching an animation of some sort flash across the screen which is supposed to represent the experience the player character is having in absense of the player?



Personally, if given the choice, since both forms of loading take the same amount of time, I'd rather stay with my character and hear some interesting dialog or a news story. That's just me.

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...
Except that the real world contains elevators,

As evidenced in countless other games, realism does not translate into entertainment value as well as most 'tweens would want you to think. Real life also has the DMV, but you don't see Niko Belic waiting in line for ten hours and then proving he knows how to drive ten miles an hour. You just hop in the car and step on it.

Just because it's in real life doesn't mean it's entertaining. Elevators are no exception, especially since they're equally boring in real life.

but such uninspired and unrealistic design is hardly what I would call a benchmark to be followed.

Opinion. Please elaborate on how convenience is an uninspired and unrealistic benchmark. I'd fear the developer that aspires to make things as inconvenient as possible. I'm not saying verticality is a no-no of game design. Verticality can add immense value to games, such as Splinter Cell, but in Mass Effect it does nothing that can't be done while the player has the freedom of movement.

I understand that you're saying that the elevators are intended to enrich character backgrounds as well as add aesthetic definition to levels, to give a sense that places are very, very huge. However, the simple truth is that these translate in quite the opposite manner to be more of annoying elements. There are other, better ways to add character background and create that feeling that the worlds are huge. The character dialogue nodes that pop up in places are a perfect example. They give the player the best of what the elevators had to offer, minus the massive waste of time. And the back drops to most levels, such as the view to the Presidium from the Zakira Ward, provide that feeling, minus the massive waste of time.

Besides, a "lean core experience" is the antithesis of what we expect from RPGs

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume you are mistaking "lean core experience" for "brief core experience."

A game can be three hundred hours long and still have a lean core experience so long as it doesn't add a bunch of pointless or innefficient elements, such as long elevators rides and planet scanning. Mass Effect's core experience is about combat and conversation. Everything else is, more or less, fat.

Call of Duty's generally poor level design

That's simply incorrect. Linear level design most certainly is not poor level design. It's increasingly unpopular with the rise of disc space and technology, but nothing about linear level design is a bad thing. Arguably, it is the most potential level design type out there, as it allows developers to focus on the quality of one path rather than the quantity of ten.

Furthermore, linearity, and elevators for that matter, have nothing to do with it. Call of Duty simply never makes you sit around for ten minutes at a time, waiting to get back to the core experience.

Regardless, "elevator" sequences in ME1 held a decided purpose. They offered a period of isolation during which the next area of the game world could be streamed in, thus allowing players to stay within the game engine, rather than transitioning via loading screen to the next "level." So of course you then have to ask... what is more compelling an experience for the player - long elevator rides filled with sights and sounds, character interactions, backstory, dialog, or other forms of exposition... OR would they prefer a loading screen, during which nothing of consequence happens and players are taken out of the action in a break with the core experience of the game while potentially watching an animation of some sort flash across the screen which is supposed to represent the experience the player character is having in absense of the player?

First of all, there is no restraint that prevents traditional loading screens from keeping the player entertained. If developers choose to make traditional loading screens that don't offer insight into the fiction or otherwise keep the player occupied, that's their lack of outside-the-box creativity. There are quite a few games with traditional loading screens that engage the player pretty dang well. Fallout 3, anyone?

Second of all, loading screens cut to gameplay as soon as they're done loading. Because Mass Effect's elevators are hard-coded, physical space in the game world, you don't skip immediately to the next floor once everything is prepared. You sit there and wait. And for some elevators, that can be upwards of a minute.

Finally and most importantly, I'd choose neither option. Technology has moved on. Some games don't even have loading screens anymore, and most of the ones that still do have them have learned how to place them during moments where the player will be occupied anyway, allowing them to move on with no time wasted. It's bad enough that Mass Effect runs on such an archaic principle in the first place, much less actually makes it worse by physically locking the player into it regardless of the loading progress.

Modifié par LaurenIsSoMosh, 23 juin 2010 - 04:13 .

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

worm_burner wrote...
First off almost every game has some sort of loading screen.  What games do you play that don't have any at all?

Psh, everything on a Nintendo platform predating the Gamecube, duh!

... Far Cry 2, for the most part. There were loading screens for fast travel (entirely optional and avoidable), key story points (and considering it has a starved story), and going from north to south (once), but other than that, you never see a loading screen.

Okay, so, maybe I was a bit incorrect in saying that. But the technology is getting to that point. Far Cry 2 used tech and codes to prevent loading screens as much as possible. Mass Effect shrugged its shoulders at such forward thinking and was content to be the same as everything else.

Secondly its seems better to have the elevators simply because they have the capability to add more context to the game.

That's an opinion, not an actual value. Nothing prevents a traditional loading screen from adding as much context to the game.  No method is more capable than the other. It's the creativity of the developers, not which type of method, that makes a loading screen good or bad.

And just because you're looking at a physical space rather than a traditional screen doesn't mean it adds more context. It's more immersive, in its own tedious way, but that's different from richer context.

Modifié par LaurenIsSoMosh, 23 juin 2010 - 02:19 .