mothra on 11/2/2011 at 14:12
not with that replacement.
EvaUnit02 on 12/2/2011 at 19:53
Quote Posted by Kuuso
Of course there won't be any Lux Aeterna. Not Mansell's fault it's been ripped into every thing that tries to be dramatic since Requiem.
No shit, obviously it isn't going to feature any Requiem faD tunes. Your sarcasm detector must be busted.
swaaye on 15/2/2011 at 19:58
Quote Posted by Eldron
So no one will miss jack wall?
I might. It depends on how Mansell works out.
EvaUnit02 on 13/5/2011 at 15:33
New info, semi-spoiler-ish the locations which you visit and returning party members.
(
http://kotaku.com/5800972/five-new-mass-effect-3-details-you-might-want-to-hear) Five New Mass Effect 3 Details You Might Want to Hear
Quote:
1. Mass Effect 3 will have fewer party characters than Mass Effect 2
I largely don't mind this. RPGs often have a large cast of henchmen who I never bother to use in my party, outside of a couple missions or so.
Quote:
"Twelve was a big number in Mass Effect 2 - almost too big", says Hudson. "We're focused on a smaller squad with deeper relationships and more interesting interplay in Mass Effect 3' he explains. "We're not going to have twelve again but we are going to do more with the characters on your squad
If they're doing more with your squad mates, narrative/literature wise then I don't mind at all.
Of course there might just be a smaller cast than ME2 due to having a shorter (and possibly more rushed) dev cycle, so they've had less time to make as much content (a la Dragon Age 2).
Quote:
3. Those worlds are going to be big.
Reapers are big. In order to have accommodate fights with them, or even having them nearby means designing levels much larger than the usual spaceship corridors that make up a large portion of Mass Effect's locales. Many of levels will include more open spaces. BioWare plans to make the shift in a way a dramatic way, claiming that some levels that are not only larger than anything ever seen in a Mass Effect game, but larger than any game built with the Unreal Engine.
YES! I missed the big worlds from ME1. Wandering around the Citadel's Praesidium, the large outdoor environments (in general, not just the Mako sections), etc. Curse ME2 largely being in corridors because 360 hardware is dated, underpowered garbage.
Quote:
5. Weapons are going to be much more customizable and detailed
In keeping up with their pledge to create a "deeper RPG experience" this time around, you'll be able to fine-tune your weapons in Mass Effect 3 much more than the last two games. "Every weapon is modular and can be customised with up to five modifications; scopes increase a rifle's zoom factor, new barrels increase accuracy or damage," Says Hudson. "Sling your gun on a workbench and it can be customised for a job at hand." Based on that last part, it sounds like it may be important to not only upgrade your weapons, but adjust them to suit different situations.
Deeper RPG experience? Hmmm, sounds more like they're taking cues from post-CoD4 MP shooters, TBH.
Malleus on 13/5/2011 at 15:51
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Deeper RPG experience?
Rifles Pistols Grenades, probably...:p
Phatose on 13/5/2011 at 21:48
Or, maybe they're just taking cues from ME1? Weapon mods were removed from the series from ME2, and having them back will add some depth.
MorbusG on 14/5/2011 at 06:36
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
YES! I missed the big worlds from ME1. Wandering around the Citadel's Praesidium, the large outdoor environments (in general, not just the Mako sections), etc.
Curse ME2 largely being in corridors because 360 hardware is dated, underpowered garbage.
ME1 was on 360...
EvaUnit02 on 14/5/2011 at 09:08
Quote Posted by MorbusG
ME1 was on 360...
...and it had framerate issues that many complained about. ME2 had smaller, more corridor like map design on purpose to maintain their target of a constant 30fps on 360.
Quote Posted by Phatose
Or, maybe they're just taking cues from ME1? Weapon mods were removed from the series from ME2, and having them back will add some depth.
No shit. The design philosophies of combat and other core gameplay systems had changed pretty dramatically. ME1's combat was still very stats-driven (eg sniper scope wavering if not enough points were pumped in the Sniper Rifle proficiency skill) vs. ME2 shift to being almost entirely skill-based. The entire weapon implementation was changed, from being unique by having infinite ammo + cooldowns to your bog-standard shooter fare, with ammo packs (in implementation that's what they are, ignoring the fact that they're "heatsinks" in lore). All these changes in shooting mechanics and other gameplay systems was to make the game appeal to the broader action game audience.
...scopes increase a rifle's zoom factor... That quote screams CoD MP to me. This "re-introduction" seems like it's designed to appeal to the mainstream console shooter fan, rather than RPG fellas who yearn for ME1's RPG systems that were pretty much all ripped out for the sequel.
(
http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/xbox/games/165063.Mass-Effect-3/news/136977.20110505.Mass-Effect-3-built-for-mass-appeal/) Mass Effect 3 built for mass appeal
Quote:
Speaking in an investor Q&A, Riccitiello said, “One of the things that Ray Muzyuka and the team up in Edmonton have done is essentially step-by-step adjust the gameplay mechanics and some of the features that you'll see at E3 to put this in a genre equivalent to shooter-meets-RPG and essentially address a much larger market opportunity than Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 began to approach.”
“We're huge believers in the IP and are purposefully shifting it to address a larger market opportunity.”
MorbusG on 14/5/2011 at 18:22
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
...and it had framerate issues that many complained about. ME2 had smaller, more corridor like map design on purpose to maintain their target of a constant 30fps on 360.
Well, looking at games like Assassins Creeds, I think it's the engine that's dated.
EvaUnit02 on 14/5/2011 at 19:11
The engine? UE3 is a great piece of tech. I'd wager it was more to do with Bioware's engineers not having enough experience with neither the hardware, nor the graphics engine. ME1 was their first 360 game and also their first UE3 powered title. Also they were pressed for time, given the lack of content in side-quest worlds and copy-pasted dungeons.
My theory for ME2 have mostly small, corridor mapping? The team took the same approach as they did for the majority of ME1's criticisms - avoid the issue altogether rather than addressing it. Our large levels/environments are unoptimised and have poor framerate? Don't make large levels. Oh, our inventory and item management is unintuitive, time consuming garbage? Throw them out, rather than trying to make improvements. Planet exploration is dull, lacking in content and variety? Cut it completely. You get the idea.
Quote:
(
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/08/26/morality-tales-bioware-versus-the-issues/comment-page-2/#comments) source
Also, the fact that the Citadel is so big means that if you try to have combat, the 360 emits a high-pitched whine and then explodes. Even without combat, the Citadel pushes the 360 to the edge of its memory constraints pretty hard, and at one point in playtesting, we were playing in a special game mode, “Get from one end of the Presidium to the other without crashing,” using our FPS indicators as sonar to try to figure out which way to go without our memory going splat. As a result, our plot designs for the roleplaying plots had to include not a whole lot of combat and limits to the number of characters and the size of their dialog files. (Note that combat that does take place on the Citadel as part of the critpath tends to happen in small hallway areas with doors nearby as level-load areas.)
Add to THAT the fact that the tech guys are swamped by putting together a game in a new engine, with the arrival of new combat functionality like cover and tech beacons requiring last-minute changes to every fighting area in the game, and you've got tech guys who don't have a whole lot of time to do complex scripting on the plots you wrote in about a day apiece. The plot with the grieving widower, for example, is generally considered to be stronger than the not-at-all-about-MMR plot. It's also more complex, with two conversations and multiple options for who says what and goes where and when they do it. (It's not very complex as plots go, but it's more complex than “These guys fire one conversation, then despawn after you're done talking to them.”) That complexity extends to QA as well. Given that QA found bugs on these plots that ranged from people not appearing to people appearing too early to people despawning but still firing their ambient “Hey, Spectre, come talk to me!” lines despite, you know, not being there, the simpler we could make those plots, the better. (Note: Not a knock on our tech guys. Our tech guys were awesome. Also, they were learning a new engine and scripting system. The writers made their share of fun mistakes, and our conversation system didn't change as much as their scripting system.)
