467 réponses à ce sujet

[Recnamoken]

You have homing missiles, who wants a weak machine gun?

[BoormanTheChauffeur]

Well, i did say it was not really a complaint. It's just that i got used to the MG in first game so i kinda felt something was missing. Oh well, doesn't matter.

[DarknessBear]

Well, here is my thinking about the Mako compared to the Hammerhead and that I think a lot of games now indays suffer from...
I generally prefer procedurally created worlds compared to something a Human hand made inch by inch. For example, even though character death animation is much more realistic if it is animated by a person, we generally prefer the nice looking ragdoll. Why? Because it is individually tailored to US, it is completely unique depending on what we are doing and we know we are experiencing something not similar to anothers. So with the first Mass Effect you were given the Mako to explore unexplored worlds which were procedurally created, so when you as a player explore them you feel like you are discovering something not many have seen and you can feel that not even the developer knows what is in every nook and cranny. Which is what gave the game a sense of scope and individuality. 

In Mass Effect 2, with it's raised budget Bioware hand crafted EVERY zone rock by rock to make it the best picture possible. But in that process you lose the individuality of exploring something that was not touched by man. Yes in contrast the ME2 environments are more appealing and the Mako levels were dull, but there is no reason why you cannot combine both in order to create an open area with hidden hand crafted environments within. 

That's the perfect mesh of creation. Just like death animations perfect mesh is; Ragdoll + Animation (Euphoria engine). You want things to look good, while wanting them to be unique towards the player. ME1 had the dull expansive areas and ME2 has the handcrafted yet small areas SO it = time to combine them.

Modifié par DarknessBear, 14 mars 2010 - 01:24 .

[TornadoADV]

I don't get your point. In either game most of the galaxy is open to you, except for certain story-related missions.

Aside from the side-missions now lacking any persuasion and most of them lacking choices, the rest of the game offers about the same amount of replay value as the first Mass Effect.

In Mass Effect 1, after you became a Spectre, you could go anywhere in the game you wanted to without advancing the story. (Excluding Virmire and Ilos of course.) In ME2, they throttled that, half the Galaxy and the Gear you can buy/research is locked until after you go through Horizion.

[Gorn Kregore]

TornadoADV wrote...

I don't get your point. In either game most of the galaxy is open to you, except for certain story-related missions.
Aside from the side-missions now lacking any persuasion and most of them lacking choices, the rest of the game offers about the same amount of replay value as the first Mass Effect.

In Mass Effect 1, after you became a Spectre, you could go anywhere in the game you wanted to without advancing the story.

May I remind you that you needed to complete Noveria and or Feros to unlock new missions or systems.

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

DarknessBear wrote...

there is no reason why you cannot combine both in order to create an open area with hidden crafted environments within. 

Time constraint. You wanna have your cake and eat it too it's going to cost you lots of time invested into making it work.

[Mavkiel]

Gorn Kregore wrote...
May I remind you that you needed to complete Noveria and or Feros to unlock new missions or systems.

Really? I may be going senile in my old age, but I could have sworn you unlock at least 2 space missions by hacking computers in the citadal. Before even getting your own ship.

Anyhow, have they given a date for the release? I am not holding much faith for general statements like "late this month". The pulled that with the arc gun and less said about dragon age dlc the better.

[DarknessBear]

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

DarknessBear wrote...

there is no reason why you cannot combine both in order to create an open area with hidden crafted environments within. 

Time constraint. You wanna have your cake and eat it too it's going to cost you lots of time invested into making it work.

Uh... you didn't read what I said. And I was talking about ME3. 

[Gazrion]

looking forward to this, just gutted that im going to malaysia in a week so wont be able to play for a while wait what am i sad for im going to malaysia lol.

cheers BW for free DLC

Modifié par Gazrion, 10 mars 2010 - 11:04 .

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

DarknessBear wrote...

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

DarknessBear wrote...

there is no reason why you cannot combine both in order to create an open area with hidden crafted environments within. 

Time constraint. You wanna have your cake and eat it too it's going to cost you lots of time invested into making it work.

Uh... you didn't read what I said. And I was talking about ME3. 

ME3, like its predecessors is going to be a project with schedules and deadlines. Drastic gameplay overhauls are risks, they require time and effort and there's no gurantee it'll even pay off (look even the new combat system somehow managed to draw flak from people).

Besides huge open areas may not necessarily be that immersive anyway. The Mako places in ME1 were mainly empty terrain with occasional features. It was a very plain landscape. Sprucing up the landscape again would be easier said than done given the amount of area to cover. It'd be like making maps for RTS games.

[Voidlight]

I finally watched the video. Looks like the guys at BioWare have been playing too much BattleZone. Which isn't a bad thing - the BattleZone series was absolutely amazing.

[incinerator950]

I'm going to miss my machinegun and cannon.

[TJSolo]

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

DarknessBear wrote...

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

DarknessBear wrote...

there is no reason why you cannot combine both in order to create an open area with hidden crafted environments within. 

Time constraint. You wanna have your cake and eat it too it's going to cost you lots of time invested into making it work.

Uh... you didn't read what I said. And I was talking about ME3. 

ME3, like its predecessors is going to be a project with schedules and deadlines. Drastic gameplay overhauls are risks, they require time and effort and there's no gurantee it'll even pay off (look even the new combat system somehow managed to draw flak from people).

Besides huge open areas may not necessarily be that immersive anyway. The Mako places in ME1 were mainly empty terrain with occasional features. It was a very plain landscape. Sprucing up the landscape again would be easier said than done given the amount of area to cover. It'd be like making maps for RTS games.

Sprucing up the terrain and imrpoving the landscape of open areas was a viable solution, regardless if it is easier said then done.
If you want to talk about time allocation and cost, factors that are there and people here are aware of, you will have to give quantitative numbers to support your reasons againt having a more open world in ME3.
Of course it will cost time and money to do so, just like every aspect of ME3 will cost time and money.

I thought ME1 did fairly well in the missions(dungeons) and the inclusion of explorable landscapes.
ME2 made the missions more unique and detail although condensed and linear. Also ME2 does not have explorable landscapes.
If ME3 did a combination of good detailed missions and included some amount of detailed explorable landscape it would do it well.

The setting of the ME series(Space) just is full of exploration potential was tapped in ME but that seemingly wasted in ME2.

[Madriker]

At least it'll be fun for the first few minutes, I guess...

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

TJSolo wrote...

If you want to talk about time allocation and cost, factors that are there and people here are aware of, you will have to give quantitative numbers to support your reasons againt having a more open world in ME3.
Of course it will cost time and money to do so, just like every aspect of ME3 will cost time and money.

I never said I was against it, more like we shouldn't expect too much, a lot of these sort of things are easier said than done, and since I haven't been there and don't that in the gaming industry, I'd rather not pretend to know whether or not it is viable to invest in making a more open world, yet at the same time not compromise other aspects of the game.

Numbers and statistics are something only the devs themselves are fully aware of. Neither of us wold be able to give numbers to support our individual claims anyway.

[TheShogunOfHarlem]

Is it even confirmed/denied whether or not there is a machine gun? The GT vids show very little but very action oriented gameplay. Primarily close quarter vehicle to vehicle combat. Omitting a machine gun or any other type of anti-personel weaponry on an IFV or MBT would be a mistake and impractical at the same time. Most IFV/MBTs need a secondary anti-personel weapon to kill any anti armor infantry because their main gun is too slow to bring to bear on an infantrymen and it's overkill.



Hopefully, the hammerhead will have more than one weapon and have a zoom toggle. I loved taking out bad guys from a distance in ME1. I'm hoping even more that combat engagements aren't limited to close quarters.

[Havokk7]

After watching the video, I just hope the tank comes with motion-sickness medication.



Bounce, fire missile, bounce, bounce, barrrffffff.

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

It's got a mass effect field. You won't feel a thing. Remember how it got all calm when the normandy went inside a mass effect field in Mnemosyne

[TJSolo]

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

If you want to talk about time allocation and cost, factors that are there and people here are aware of, you will have to give quantitative numbers to support your reasons againt having a more open world in ME3.
Of course it will cost time and money to do so, just like every aspect of ME3 will cost time and money.

I never said I was against it, more like we shouldn't expect too much, a lot of these sort of things are easier said than done, and since I haven't been there and don't that in the gaming industry, I'd rather not pretend to know whether or not it is viable to invest in making a more open world, yet at the same time not compromise other aspects of the game.

Numbers and statistics are something only the devs themselves are fully aware of. Neither of us wold be able to give numbers to support our individual claims anyway.

My point was just that anyone that doesn't have a Bioware tag on the avatar should not claim an idea for ME will be easy or hard to implement based on resources we are not aware of.

Bioware working an ethereal aspect for ME3 may or may not effect some other ethereal aspect of ME3.

[Xtraordianary]

OMG FREE DLC + AWESOME FLYING TANK = ****Z IN MY PANTZZZZ.....

[Seeker1187]

Freekin sweet! I cannot wait! This game is way too addicting.



I gotta say the only thing I really truly miss from ME 1 (with the exception of Liara lol) is the ability to revisit conquered worlds and cook off some rounds. It just sank in last week after I finished my last N7 mission post suicide run. That if I ever want to shoot a gun again I would have to start a new game or reload to a previous point in the game.



Point being, I can understand the frustration at the lack of explorable planets, but I cannot understand it keeping your from enjoying this amazing masterpiece of interactive entertainment.

[shep82]

TJSolo wrote...



Sprucing up the terrain and imrpoving the landscape of open areas was a viable solution, regardless if it is easier said then done.
If you want to talk about time allocation and cost, factors that are there and people here are aware of, you will have to give quantitative numbers to support your reasons againt having a more open world in ME3.
Of course it will cost time and money to do so, just like every aspect of ME3 will cost time and money.

I thought ME1 did fairly well in the missions(dungeons) and the inclusion of explorable landscapes.
ME2 made the missions more unique and detail although condensed and linear. Also ME2 does not have explorable landscapes.
If ME3 did a combination of good detailed missions and included some amount of detailed explorable landscape it would do it well.

The setting of the ME series(Space) just is full of exploration potential was tapped in ME but that seemingly wasted in ME2.

I disagree. As much as U love ME1 the dungeons were very repetitive and the environments bland except on hub worlds. ME 2 fixed that and there is still plenty of exploration nothing was wasted IMHO.

[TJSolo]

shep82 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...



Sprucing up the terrain and imrpoving the landscape of open areas was a viable solution, regardless if it is easier said then done.
If you want to talk about time allocation and cost, factors that are there and people here are aware of, you will have to give quantitative numbers to support your reasons againt having a more open world in ME3.
Of course it will cost time and money to do so, just like every aspect of ME3 will cost time and money.

I thought ME1 did fairly well in the missions(dungeons) and the inclusion of explorable landscapes.
ME2 made the missions more unique and detail although condensed and linear. Also ME2 does not have explorable landscapes.
If ME3 did a combination of good detailed missions and included some amount of detailed explorable landscape it would do it well.

The setting of the ME series(Space) just is full of exploration potential was tapped in ME but that seemingly wasted in ME2.

I disagree. As much as U love ME1 the dungeons were very repetitive and the environments bland except on hub worlds. ME 2 fixed that and there is still plenty of exploration nothing was wasted IMHO.

Are you talking about the main missions or the side quests? The main missions were not bland and areas were very well done, IIos was epic. The side quests needed improvment.

But nothing wasted in ME2 at all, nothing bland,  no reskinning of the same object , no repetition either.
"Probe away" on the same marble just with a different skin is unique everytime I explored one.
 

[Tazzmission]

shep82 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...



Sprucing up the terrain and imrpoving the landscape of open areas was a viable solution, regardless if it is easier said then done.
If you want to talk about time allocation and cost, factors that are there and people here are aware of, you will have to give quantitative numbers to support your reasons againt having a more open world in ME3.
Of course it will cost time and money to do so, just like every aspect of ME3 will cost time and money.

I thought ME1 did fairly well in the missions(dungeons) and the inclusion of explorable landscapes.
ME2 made the missions more unique and detail although condensed and linear. Also ME2 does not have explorable landscapes.
If ME3 did a combination of good detailed missions and included some amount of detailed explorable landscape it would do it well.

The setting of the ME series(Space) just is full of exploration potential was tapped in ME but that seemingly wasted in ME2.

I disagree. As much as U love ME1 the dungeons were very repetitive and the environments bland except on hub worlds. ME 2 fixed that and there is still plenty of exploration nothing was wasted IMHO.

in me2 you can buy star charts... i bought 5 from illium when i went to go talk to the officer about samara