michaelm
N2
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
XBL Gamertag: ArchMikem
Posts: 154 Likes: 187
inherit
6004
0
May 28, 2020 20:46:27 GMT
187
michaelm
154
Mar 25, 2017 13:30:11 GMT
March 2017
michaelm
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
ArchMikem
|
Post by michaelm on Feb 18, 2019 15:24:24 GMT
Mirrors Edge is a great open world game.
|
|
inherit
4578
0
5,014
griffith82
Hope for the best, plan for the worst
4,259
Mar 15, 2017 21:36:52 GMT
March 2017
griffith82
|
Post by griffith82 on Feb 18, 2019 21:05:43 GMT
You're not describing an open-world game at all. ME's story would still demand that all the locations relative to ME2 not be available to the player until they had worked their way through the ME1 portion of the story. The same would apply for ME3 locations. There would be a few locations that would have to be open to the player throughout, but they are changed by events in the story. For example, the Citadel would have to be rebuilt twice and the player could not be allowed to access the rebuilt versions until after they had reach the applicable point in the story. A good story has a well define progression and the characters and the world around them respond to the story. Open-world games have, universally, trouble doing that since, by definition, the player should be able to access the locations whenever they like and trigger quests in any area whenever they like. I don't know if open world means that the player can access all areas from the beginning, having the citadel close down after the Geth attack seems reasonable then there's the time jump for Lazarus in which it reopens. I guess linear missions through an open world map would be difficult to implement. Open world can mean some areas locked out initially but can cause bugs. GTA3 had people constantly trying to bypass the map lockouts and caused some interesting glitches. Same with GTA4.
|
|
inherit
837
0
Apr 11, 2024 20:19:58 GMT
1,742
flyingsquirrel
1,323
August 2016
flyingsquirrel
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by flyingsquirrel on Feb 25, 2019 22:35:23 GMT
I'm not really sure how to explain it other than that in a successful open world game, I feel like I'm one of a number of different moving parts in a community or society that changes and responds to what's happening and that I'm not just doing the same thing over and over. Part of the reason the infamous "settlements in danger" in Fallout 4 became tiresome was that there was no sense that any of it actually meant anything. You could go help a settlement and build up their defenses, and 10 hours later they'd be under attack from the same enemies again and your efforts didn't seem to make the Commonwealth any safer in general. Similarly, most of the same respawning enemies will keep coming back in Andromeda regardless of your progress in stabilizing the habitat worlds. It makes the artifice kind of obvious, as if to reinforce the fact that these things are happening in little pockets that are separate from the main narrative.
Even if it's combat-heavy, some tactical variety, creativity with the settings, and wider ranges of loot (preferably without a super-complex management system) can help avoid that feel of sameness. I don't know that Fallout 3, for example, spends a lower percentage of its time on combat compared to Andromeda, but usually any one particular round of gunplay with Super Mutants wouldn't feel exactly like the last one and you might find a needed stimpak or a piece of armor that you can use to repair yours when it's over. TW3, even at its grindiest (probably the monster-hunting contracts), gives you a variety of monsters and tactics for Geralt to use against them, and the more cookie-cutter enemies are usually brief diversions along the way rather than being the final battle of a sidequest. Andromeda has a lot of sidequests that conclude with little more than another round of cover-based shooting with the Kett, Outcasts, and Remnant.
Mass Effect 1 actually had the scale about right, even if the planetary surfaces and bases featured a lot of recycled assets and the Mako could be a pain - unless you were purposely trying to waste time and/or were hell-bent on not missing a single mineral sample or League of One artifact, you couldn't spend hours and hours driving around a single planet without feeling like you accomplished much. I'd like to see Bioware replicate ME1's sense of scale with MEA's design quality and forget about aiming for "more and bigger."
|
|
inherit
9002
0
Oct 13, 2023 22:02:03 GMT
681
natetrace
437
Jul 13, 2017 17:36:20 GMT
July 2017
natetrace
|
Post by natetrace on Feb 26, 2019 2:44:09 GMT
I have been thinking about open world and generated planets. I think linear should be the focus, but you can have one open world area, or one planet (a mystery unnamed planet) that changes every time you load the game. Ooh so mysterious. You have to limit your worlds, in order to open up one or two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 11:51:02 GMT
I have been thinking about open world and generated planets. I think linear should be the focus, but you can have one open world area, or one planet (a mystery unnamed planet) that changes every time you load the game. Ooh so mysterious. You have to limit your worlds, in order to open up one or two. That would have been a cool idea for Andromeda where part of the story was focused on changing the environments. Instead of the vaults improving the climate of the planets they were on (Voeld, Havarl, and Kadara, those planets could have already been heavily populated by alien species and, therefore, not suitable as a home (like Aya), but activating the vaults on those planets could have been a means to affect the network of them to change the climate on Habitat 7 and 3 other planets that had been designated by the Initiative as Golden Worlds.... where, after "fixing" them and the climate stabilized, we could have been able to build actual colonies and wake up NPC's to populate them (much like Fallout 4). If they do a continuation of ME:A (i.e. ME:A2), they could still take the story in that sort of direction. It could even follow the manual terraforming the Initiative is doing on Habitat 7.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 12:14:37 GMT
I'm not really sure how to explain it other than that in a successful open world game, I feel like I'm one of a number of different moving parts in a community or society that changes and responds to what's happening and that I'm not just doing the same thing over and over. Part of the reason the infamous "settlements in danger" in Fallout 4 became tiresome was that there was no sense that any of it actually meant anything. You could go help a settlement and build up their defenses, and 10 hours later they'd be under attack from the same enemies again and your efforts didn't seem to make the Commonwealth any safer in general. Similarly, most of the same respawning enemies will keep coming back in Andromeda regardless of your progress in stabilizing the habitat worlds. It makes the artifice kind of obvious, as if to reinforce the fact that these things are happening in little pockets that are separate from the main narrative. Even if it's combat-heavy, some tactical variety, creativity with the settings, and wider ranges of loot (preferably without a super-complex management system) can help avoid that feel of sameness. I don't know that Fallout 3, for example, spends a lower percentage of its time on combat compared to Andromeda, but usually any one particular round of gunplay with Super Mutants wouldn't feel exactly like the last one and you might find a needed stimpak or a piece of armor that you can use to repair yours when it's over. TW3, even at its grindiest (probably the monster-hunting contracts), gives you a variety of monsters and tactics for Geralt to use against them, and the more cookie-cutter enemies are usually brief diversions along the way rather than being the final battle of a sidequest. Andromeda has a lot of sidequests that conclude with little more than another round of cover-based shooting with the Kett, Outcasts, and Remnant. Mass Effect 1 actually had the scale about right, even if the planetary surfaces and bases featured a lot of recycled assets and the Mako could be a pain - unless you were purposely trying to waste time and/or were hell-bent on not missing a single mineral sample or League of One artifact, you couldn't spend hours and hours driving around a single planet without feeling like you accomplished much. I'd like to see Bioware replicate ME1's sense of scale with MEA's design quality and forget about aiming for "more and bigger." I beg to differ. On one's first playthrough, all you would know before starting to look is that you needed to find 20 each of 3 different minerals and 7 different gases. You would not find them marked anywhere on the planet map nor would you know how many were on that planet on which you landed first. You would not know even if the minerals could be found on every planet or whether some planets contained collections items that might be assigned by quest farther into the game. So, you could conceivably spend a lot of time driving around your first few planets looing for as many minerals as you could find. It's also a matter of shear luck whether those first few planets were easy to drive on or mountainous hellscapes.
I agree that the overall scale of ME1 was great. I prefer games that run about 50 to 60 hours to complete (100%) to games that can involve 100s of hours (which is the current trend). Right now, I have a copy of RDR2 that I was given for Christmas that I just can't even convinced myself to open.. because it's "so large." The critics and reviewers seem impressed by size, but I'm becoming rather jaded by it based on my experience with other large games. For example, amid all the bugs and corrupted save files I experienced with FO4, I doubt I'll be able to bring myself to ever try to finish that story (because it means starting yet another new file after having lost my previous one to corruption about 100 hours into the game... and it wasn't the first I had lost that way)... and it was feeling rather grindy by that point anyways. Initially, I absolutely loved the gameplay and was intrigued by the story... but the shine has worn off that coin now.
I think the story should progress in a linear fashion... we'll get better stories with more cohesive and involved plots within them that way. The open world exploration aspect should be separate from that. The Long Dark appears to be taking that approach by dividing the game into Story Mode and Survival Mode. Survival Mode is a long, very grindy experience... and I've enjoyed it for a time. The story so far seems to be less so... although it's too early to judge since 3 of the 5 episodes of it are not yet released... and may not be released for years to come.
Which brings me to my last point... the time and investment it takes to generate these huge "open-world" games... is it worth it... or is it slowly driving the industry into bankruptcy amid increasingly hostile reviews as we increasingly demand that every game include everything we could ever possibly want to do in a video game? Are more games going online because our personal hardware can't really run these huge games well unless we invest huge dollars in high-capacity gaming PCs?
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Feb 26, 2019 12:35:47 GMT
That's... actually even less clear. You're differentiating between "large maps" and "open world" according to criteria which I don't understand. Can you elaborate? A world is a coherent piece that takes both geography and buildings, settlements, civilisation in account. That is more than just plopping some props down. Or make a maze-like 3D jump and run level. A world needs to be believable. The river follows the land feature. Mountains need to look organic. Biome transition needs to look natural. Sound ambient, wildlife, weather effects - that all belongs to a coherent piece of world.
And after the immediate "physical" sensation of look and hear, there is a meta level of story, lore or background that needs to be consistent with what the world is about.
Take Fallout worlds e.g. FO4 has a dam. It is derelict. Along the water is a town which is partly submerged, likely due to the dam not properly operating. A bit further up there is a settlement with broken houses due to a landslide. The world is not that static - what you see suggests the map could shift and be shaped.
Places spawn creatures where they belong. If you go under water you won't be teleported. A small dune is climbable within reason. Good climbing is important. Going places without being gated of by a gamey door in an "open" world is important. Don't railroad with impassable terrain too much. If terrain is like walls in a building, it's no "open" world anymore.
A map is just that where you navigate - it lacks parts that doesn't make it feel complete. DAI maps e.g. were pretty, but they weren't open worlds. Not by a long shot
|
|
inherit
1265
0
Apr 14, 2024 11:47:48 GMT
1,669
isaidlunch
794
Aug 26, 2016 22:27:12 GMT
August 2016
isaidlunch
|
Post by isaidlunch on Feb 26, 2019 13:36:35 GMT
They can start by not showing the entire map and all the "points of interest" within the first five minutes of playing. It doesn't feel like exploration when the developer is leading you around by the nose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 13:45:17 GMT
They can start by not showing the entire map and all the "points of interest" within the first five minutes of playing. It doesn't feel like exploration when the developer is leading you around by the nose. ... and if they don't, gamers whine that the maps are "so empty" and "there's nothing to do." Or they whine that they are being asked to continually go back and forth between already visited locations as they unlock new quests in those areas.
Free exploration games are fine as their own genre... but, IMO, they are not conducive to plot-driven and character development driven story games. They are more suited to survival games or sims-type games. Too much "free world" weakens the story overall.
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Feb 26, 2019 16:58:04 GMT
They can start by not showing the entire map and all the "points of interest" within the first five minutes of playing. It doesn't feel like exploration when the developer is leading you around by the nose. ... and if they don't, gamers whine that the maps are "so empty" and "there's nothing to do." Or they whine that they are being asked to continually go back and forth between already visited locations as they unlock new quests in those areas.
Free exploration games are fine as their own genre... but, IMO, they are not conducive to plot-driven and character development driven story games. They are more suited to survival games or sims-type games. Too much "free world" weakens the story overall.
If people don't find stuff to do on a map the density and maybe distances are off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 17:49:01 GMT
... and if they don't, gamers whine that the maps are "so empty" and "there's nothing to do." Or they whine that they are being asked to continually go back and forth between already visited locations as they unlock new quests in those areas.
Free exploration games are fine as their own genre... but, IMO, they are not conducive to plot-driven and character development driven story games. They are more suited to survival games or sims-type games. Too much "free world" weakens the story overall.
If people don't find stuff to do on a map the density and maybe distances are off. From various people I've watched playing Andromeda on Youtube and complaining about the worlds being empty, a lot of it was from them having not unlocked a number of the quests such that very few quest markers appeared on their maps. They also had not unlocked the Cryo perks that filled in more loot crates on the map... then, in the same breath, they were complaining about the random enemy encounters being too frequent, necessitating that they jump in and out of the mako too frequently. The two thoughts are in complete contradiction with one another... leading me to believe that people were more intent on just finding things to complain about than they were in actually experiencing the world. In the end, after all quests are unlocked, the quest density on the ME:A maps is pretty similar to the quest density on TW3 maps. That the distance between markers is greater reflects the fact that the nomad moves faster than Roach across the map. There is a lot of loot crates in TW3 and a lot more plants to collect to make potions and random wolf attacks and bandit attacks are incessant in TW3. I had to get on and off Roach repeatedly or else sprint by the attackers... just as much as I had to boost the Nomad to get by enemies on ME:A maps. However, people adamantly complain that they don't like those things in ME:A either... but they're the greatest thing since sliced bread when they find them in a Witcher game, apparently. From what I can see, it has nothing to do with the distances being 'off."
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Feb 26, 2019 18:09:26 GMT
If people don't find stuff to do on a map the density and maybe distances are off. From various people I've watched playing Andromeda on Youtube and complaining about the worlds being empty, a lot of it was from them having not unlocked a number of the quests such that very few quest markers appeared on their maps. They also had not unlocked the Cryo perks that filled in more loot crates on the map... then, in the same breath, they were complaining about the random enemy encounters being too frequent, necessitating that they jump in and out of the mako too frequently. The two thoughts are in complete contradiction with one another... leading me to believe that people were more intent on just finding things to complain about than they were in actually experiencing the world. In the end, after all quests are unlocked, the density on the ME:A maps is pretty similar to the density on TW3 maps. That the distance between markers is greater reflects the fact that the nomad moves faster than Roach across the map. There is a lot of loot crates in TW3 and a lot more plants to collect to make potions and random wolf attacks and bandit attacks are incessant in TW3. I had to get on and off Roach repeatedly or else sprint by the attackers... just as much as I had to boost the Nomad to get by enemies on ME:A maps. However, people adamantly complain that they don't like those things either... except when they find them in a Witcher game, apparently. From what I can see, it has nothing to do with the distances being 'off." Neither Andromeda nor TW3 are particularly great worlds. Andromeda is mostly bland with Elaadan being a really good map to go exploring. TW3's forests were dense with little spots to rest and plan hiking. I'm also not a friend of map markers. As markers to keep track of PoIs: ok, but no question mark clutter please. Either have intersting places and tracks to follow oor better not bother.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2019 18:45:38 GMT
From various people I've watched playing Andromeda on Youtube and complaining about the worlds being empty, a lot of it was from them having not unlocked a number of the quests such that very few quest markers appeared on their maps. They also had not unlocked the Cryo perks that filled in more loot crates on the map... then, in the same breath, they were complaining about the random enemy encounters being too frequent, necessitating that they jump in and out of the mako too frequently. The two thoughts are in complete contradiction with one another... leading me to believe that people were more intent on just finding things to complain about than they were in actually experiencing the world. In the end, after all quests are unlocked, the density on the ME:A maps is pretty similar to the density on TW3 maps. That the distance between markers is greater reflects the fact that the nomad moves faster than Roach across the map. There is a lot of loot crates in TW3 and a lot more plants to collect to make potions and random wolf attacks and bandit attacks are incessant in TW3. I had to get on and off Roach repeatedly or else sprint by the attackers... just as much as I had to boost the Nomad to get by enemies on ME:A maps. However, people adamantly complain that they don't like those things either... except when they find them in a Witcher game, apparently. From what I can see, it has nothing to do with the distances being 'off." Neither Andromeda nor TW3 are particularly great worlds. Andromeda is mostly bland with Elaadan being a really good map to go exploring. TW3's forests were dense with little spots to rest and plan hiking. I'm also not a friend of map markers. As markers to keep track of PoIs: ok, but no question mark clutter please. Either have intersting places and tracks to follow oor better not bother. I didn't find Havarl bland at all. Little bits of remnant runs all over the place, little caves, a chasm with secret doors at each end. Voeld was an ice world that had yevara swimming under the ice, several snow caves, and an few ice-filled settlements (two were "abandoned" ruins). Eos had numerous canyons and caves, all those kett structures on the plains, and a two ruined Initiative settlements. Each vault was unique is unique puzzles to solve. Compared to ME1 planets, there was a lot more to explore.
However, people I saw on Youtube did not go into the game with an attitude that they wanted to explore anything. Time and time again, I saw people turn away from exploring Site 2 on their first visit, instead bee-lining for each monolith... and then complaining that there was nothing to explore on that planet. They'd enter a vault and complain about the puzzles and the platforming instead of looking at the architecture and uniqueness of each one.
Each world also still had open spaces where you could simply have fun driving the nomad. Dune busting on Elaaden and chasm jumping on H-047c was just great fun... and the Nomad was far more fun to drive than the mako ever was. They gave us an in-game impetus to do that in the form of mining... but it wasn't compulsory since one could buy the minerals they needed... and people complained about that as well... preferring, I guess, to jump out of the mako to do a frogger game to unlock the little "turd" mineral sites were found in that game.
Then there was the galaxy map. Beautifully rendered universe... that people immediately indicated they did not want to explore... "give us a skip" they said.
I'm not saying that Andromeda was the perfect open-world map. The story would have been better served without an open world. Right now, that honor of a great open-world goes to The Long Dark... but The Long Dark is a grndy survival game... not something attempting to be a plot-driven or character-driven RPG.
|
|
anarchy65
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 891 Likes: 1,080
inherit
8825
0
1,080
anarchy65
891
Jun 25, 2017 23:54:40 GMT
June 2017
anarchy65
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by anarchy65 on Feb 27, 2019 17:11:23 GMT
1: You've got to make your open world seems alive. If the country is at war, make it look like it. Put villages, people in trouble, enemies, things that don't make it feel like a walking simulator. I think what Skyrim did pretty well were RANDOM EVENTS: In Skyrim, random events happen anytime you're walking out of cities. You may be robbed by thiefs, attacked by assassins, attacked by a dragon, see guards taking a prisoner... after a while it becomes repetitive, but this kind of thing should be implemented if you're going open world. Some games work just fine without them (The Witcher 3) because they have so many awesome quests it becomes needless.
2: Make a lot of side quests with interesting content that make you explore that open world. Make your choices actually meaningful, and not something you'll never see again. Drop fetch quests to a minimum. Even better if they are nonexistent.
3: Make interesting dungeons. Unfortunately, DA:I had too few of them IMO.
ME:A did everything wrong on that. The open worlds were empty and we had no reason to explore them. The exploring was painful, especially with that crappy car. One example is that world without gravity. It was fun and had a lot of potential, but it had like 2 or 3 quests on it and you're done with it. AN ENTIRE PLANET to make 2 or 3 quests and nothing else? Come on.
And of course, a really big challenge when you make open world are the bugs. You must have a REALLY good team to correct that. Skyrim was a great game, but even today, with all the patches (even the unofficial ones) and different editions, you find a bug every corner. Quest bugs, companion bugs, house bugs, family bugs, it's endless. Skyrim got away with it because it was a great game. Andromeda, Anthem and other games didn't.
Some open world games that seemed to do very well without so many bugs were Horizon and The Witcher 3. Dragon Age: Inquisition too, if you consider it an open world, since it has so many areas.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,161
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,818
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 27, 2019 17:20:23 GMT
I'm also not a friend of map markers. As markers to keep track of PoIs: ok, but no question mark clutter please. Either have intersting places and tracks to follow oor better not bother. That's been a bane of the genre for a while, even in games which do have trails and whatnot to indicate what might be interesting. I eventually gave up on even looking at the compass in Skyrim.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,161
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,818
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 27, 2019 17:43:17 GMT
ME:A did everything wrong on that. The open worlds were empty and we had no reason to explore them. The exploring was painful, especially with that crappy car. What was painful about it? The Nomad lets you cross the map fast and disengage from anything you don't actually want to fight. I'll go with having no reason to explore the maps, although if you don't have a reason to explore the maps the answer is to simply not explore them, isn't it? I find that the ME:A and DAI maps are best approached instrumentally. Ryder's here to do something. She does it, she leaves. If she accidentally runs into something worth looking into on the way, then fine. The other way is fine too. Just FT back to base and get on with it. (Of course, this may just be a symptom of me not really being invested in the entire OW concept in the first place.) This works better in some places than in others. One recurring problem in ME:A is that the game keeps trying to get you involved in pointless struggles around kett camps and small Remnant sites. In DA:I, assuming you're not using the horse, the enemies are obstacles rather than fights of choice, which I think works better. Note that on Kadara exploration can be literally pointless; quest-related NPCs won't spawn in until their mission is active, so a lot of the bases you can find will simply be empty because the mission isn't active yet. I like Kadara's design in general, but don't do this unless you really have to, guys. Speaking of pointless combat, one thing we haven't talked about enough is that ME:A's loot and XP engines are badly broken, which makes pointless combat more pointless than it is in other games. The limited ability slots mean that the value of XP drops rapidly after about level 10 or so since your primary abilities are getting good, and just about all loot is outright worthless since crafted equipment outclasses found and bought gear in every way thanks to augmentations. (DAI's loot was pretty bad too, but having to equip the squadmates kept more of it relevant, and schematics were actually worth finding or buying.) Hmm... broken loot... suddenly I'm thinking about Anthem. About as much activity I'd expect on a dead rock, tbh.
|
|
anarchy65
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 891 Likes: 1,080
inherit
8825
0
1,080
anarchy65
891
Jun 25, 2017 23:54:40 GMT
June 2017
anarchy65
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by anarchy65 on Feb 27, 2019 18:02:12 GMT
ME:A did everything wrong on that. The open worlds were empty and we had no reason to explore them. The exploring was painful, especially with that crappy car. What was painful about it? The Nomad lets you cross the map fast and disengage from anything you don't actually want to fight. I'll go with having no reason to explore the maps, although if you don't have a reason to explore the maps the answer is to simply not explore them, isn't it? I find that the ME:A and DAI maps are best approached instrumentally. Ryder's here to do something. She does it, she leaves. If she accidentally runs into something worth looking into on the way, then fine. The other way is fine too. Just FT back to base and get on with it. (Of course, this may just be a symptom of me not really being invested in the entire OW concept in the first place.) About as much activity I'd expect on a dead rock, tbh. Having to change modes to go over the smallest climbs was painful. The maps were full of mountains and high roads. Seriously, everybody else moves around in a shuttle, why can't we too? Instead we get this crappy car that can't go over a small climb without changing the mode. It's worse than cars in 2019. Well, I only know the map is not worth exploring AFTER exploring it. I can't know the map will be empty before exploring it. And that's very irritating, you explore and explore and you don't find absolutely anything despite generic kett fights. Yeah, so... DON'T CREATE A DEAD ROCK.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,161
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,818
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Feb 27, 2019 18:25:28 GMT
Hmm... don't like standard transmissions, eh? I put sometimes having to engage 6WD in the same category as having to steer, myself.
But yeah, I'd have preferred a shuttle too. As someone who's indifferent to OW, I would, wouldn't I? As far as I'm concerned they should have stuck with the ME2/ME3 design.
You get to play the "don't know the planet's worth exploring card" once, maybe twice. After that, we're in the stereotypical definition of insanity territory
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Feb 27, 2019 18:33:18 GMT
ME:A did everything wrong on that. The open worlds were empty and we had no reason to explore them. The exploring was painful, especially with that crappy car. What was painful about it? The Nomad lets you cross the map fast and disengage from anything you don't actually want to fight. I'll go with having no reason to explore the maps, although if you don't have a reason to explore the maps the answer is to simply not explore them, isn't it? I find that the ME:A and DAI maps are best approached instrumentally. Ryder's here to do something. She does it, she leaves. If she accidentally runs into something worth looking into on the way, then fine. The other way is fine too. Just FT back to base and get on with it. (Of course, this may just be a symptom of me not really being invested in the entire OW concept in the first place.) This works better in some places than in others. One recurring problem in ME:A is that the game keeps trying to get you involved in pointless struggles around kett camps and small Remnant sites. In DA:I, assuming you're not using the horse, the enemies are obstacles rather than fights of choice, which I think works better. Note that on Kadara exploration can be literally pointless; quest-related NPCs won't spawn in until their mission is active, so a lot of the bases you can find will simply be empty because the mission isn't active yet. I like Kadara's design in general, but don't do this unless you really have to, guys. Speaking of pointless combat, one thing we haven't talked about enough is that ME:A's loot and XP engines are badly broken, which makes pointless combat more pointless than it is in other games. The limited ability slots mean that the value of XP drops rapidly after about level 10 or so since your primary abilities are getting good, and just about all loot is outright worthless since crafted equipment outclasses found and bought gear in every way thanks to augmentations. (DAI's loot was pretty bad too, but having to equip the squadmates kept more of it relevant, and schematics were actually worth finding or buying.) Hmm... broken loot... suddenly I'm thinking about Anthem. About as much activity I'd expect on a dead rock, tbh. Elaaden was a nice place. Interesting freatures. Hazard not too punishing. Places to spot from far off. And places that could be just behind next dune. Good atmosphere. No gamey gates. It was believable. Did I mention the lighting? Would be a great building block in a bigger open world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 18:37:33 GMT
ME:A did everything wrong on that. The open worlds were empty and we had no reason to explore them. The exploring was painful, especially with that crappy car. One example is that world without gravity. It was fun and had a lot of potential, but it had like 2 or 3 quests on it and you're done with it. AN ENTIRE PLANET to make 2 or 3 quests and nothing else? Come on. And of course, a really big challenge when you make open world are the bugs. You must have a REALLY good team to correct that. Skyrim was a great game, but even today, with all the patches (even the unofficial ones) and different editions, you find a bug every corner. Quest bugs, companion bugs, house bugs, family bugs, it's endless. Skyrim got away with it because it was a great game. Andromeda, Anthem and other games didn't. Some open world games that seemed to do very well without so many bugs were Horizon and The Witcher 3. Dragon Age: Inquisition too, if you consider it an open world, since it has so many areas. That just tells me you didn't start the game with a mindset towards exploration... since exploration is something that takes place for exploration's sake... to become familiar with something you're not familiar with. The game was new and you had no idea what you might have found in any corner of it, so there was a reason to at least explore it. From what I saw, too many passed verdict on it after 10 hours of playing and all the while actively seeking out things to complain about.
I did explore each and every world - 100% and I saw views (e.g. from the top of Mithrava), found datapads (like Grace Lito's message left by where the last shuttle took off from Eos), and put together little pieces of different stories about people within the Initiative. These things didn't involve quests, fetching anything, or loot hauls... but I consider them having been worth the exploration of the game. Now, I do play a more streamlined playthrough... but sometimes I do still take the time to admire the view from the top of Mithrava or the view from above the Resistance Base on Voeld. I'm currently playing The Long Dark (on survival) and there aren't a whole lot of loot sites and only some animals that spawn as enemies in the game. It's all about seeing a game world that I've never been inside before... that's the only reason to explore it... and I've loved every minute of it.
|
|
anarchy65
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 891 Likes: 1,080
inherit
8825
0
1,080
anarchy65
891
Jun 25, 2017 23:54:40 GMT
June 2017
anarchy65
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by anarchy65 on Feb 27, 2019 19:04:30 GMT
ME:A did everything wrong on that. The open worlds were empty and we had no reason to explore them. The exploring was painful, especially with that crappy car. One example is that world without gravity. It was fun and had a lot of potential, but it had like 2 or 3 quests on it and you're done with it. AN ENTIRE PLANET to make 2 or 3 quests and nothing else? Come on. And of course, a really big challenge when you make open world are the bugs. You must have a REALLY good team to correct that. Skyrim was a great game, but even today, with all the patches (even the unofficial ones) and different editions, you find a bug every corner. Quest bugs, companion bugs, house bugs, family bugs, it's endless. Skyrim got away with it because it was a great game. Andromeda, Anthem and other games didn't. Some open world games that seemed to do very well without so many bugs were Horizon and The Witcher 3. Dragon Age: Inquisition too, if you consider it an open world, since it has so many areas. That just tells me you didn't start the game with a mindset towards exploration... since exploration is something that takes place for exploration's sake... to become familiar with something you're not familiar with. The game was new and you had no idea what you might have found in any corner of it, so there was a reason to at least explore it. From what I saw, too many passed verdict on it after 10 hours of playing and all the while actively seeking out things to complain about.
I did explore each and every world - 100% and I saw views (e.g. from the top of Mithrava), found datapads (like Grace Lito's message left by where the last shuttle took off from Eos), and put together little pieces of different stories about people within the Initiative. These things didn't involve quests, fetching anything, or loot hauls... but I consider them having been worth the exploration of the game. Now, I do play a more streamlined playthrough... but sometimes I do still take the time to admire the view from the top of Mithrava or the view from above the Resistance Base on Voeld. I'm currently playing The Long Dark (on survival) and there aren't a whole lot of loot sites and only some animals that spawn as enemies in the game. It's all about seeing a game world that I've never been inside before... that's the only reason to explore it... and I've loved every minute of it.
LOL, if what it takes for you to be a world "worth exploring" is sightseeing and a few datapads, then ANY open world game will be fine to you. A reason to explore, of course I had, what I meant is, THERE WAS NOTHING TO EXPLORE, the worlds were completely empty. If you like sightseeing that much, I suggest you play Dynasty Warriors 9. The map is absurdely huge with absolutely nothing on it except for enemies and sightseeing, you will love it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 19:13:02 GMT
That just tells me you didn't start the game with a mindset towards exploration... since exploration is something that takes place for exploration's sake... to become familiar with something you're not familiar with. The game was new and you had no idea what you might have found in any corner of it, so there was a reason to at least explore it. From what I saw, too many passed verdict on it after 10 hours of playing and all the while actively seeking out things to complain about.
I did explore each and every world - 100% and I saw views (e.g. from the top of Mithrava), found datapads (like Grace Lito's message left by where the last shuttle took off from Eos), and put together little pieces of different stories about people within the Initiative. These things didn't involve quests, fetching anything, or loot hauls... but I consider them having been worth the exploration of the game. Now, I do play a more streamlined playthrough... but sometimes I do still take the time to admire the view from the top of Mithrava or the view from above the Resistance Base on Voeld. I'm currently playing The Long Dark (on survival) and there aren't a whole lot of loot sites and only some animals that spawn as enemies in the game. It's all about seeing a game world that I've never been inside before... that's the only reason to explore it... and I've loved every minute of it.
LOL, if what it takes for you to be a world "worth exploring" is sightseeing and a few datapads, then ANY open world game will be fine to you. A reason to explore, of course I had, what I meant is, THERE WAS NOTHING TO EXPLORE, the worlds were completely empty. If you like sightseeing that much, I suggest you play Dynasty Warriors 9. The map is absurdely huge with absolutely nothing on it except for enemies and sightseeing, you will love it. They were not completely empty... not as full as you wanted to be handed to you without even being willing to look for it... and that attitude is not conducive to actual exploration of anything.
The difference between how ME1's empty and almost featureless planets are viewed vs. ME:A's planets (which have more features by far and more different sites on them) is that people entered ME1 with an attitude conducive to "just seeing what the worlds were like." That attitude was just not there for many people starting Andromeda. They started the game with a shopping list of complaints they had been prepping their minds to find long before ME:A even released... and so that's pretty much the only things they allowed themselves to see when they played their first 10 hours.
|
|
anarchy65
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 891 Likes: 1,080
inherit
8825
0
1,080
anarchy65
891
Jun 25, 2017 23:54:40 GMT
June 2017
anarchy65
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by anarchy65 on Feb 27, 2019 19:35:15 GMT
LOL, if what it takes for you to be a world "worth exploring" is sightseeing and a few datapads, then ANY open world game will be fine to you. A reason to explore, of course I had, what I meant is, THERE WAS NOTHING TO EXPLORE, the worlds were completely empty. If you like sightseeing that much, I suggest you play Dynasty Warriors 9. The map is absurdely huge with absolutely nothing on it except for enemies and sightseeing, you will love it. They were not completely empty... not as full as you wanted to be handed to you without even being willing to look for it... and that attitude is not conducive to actual exploration of anything.
The difference between how ME1's empty and almost featureless planets are viewed vs. ME:A's planets (which have more features by far and more different sites on them) is that people entered ME1 with an attitude conducive to "just seeing what the worlds were like." That attitude was just not there for many people starting Andromeda. They started the game with a shopping list of complaints they had been prepping their minds to find long before ME:A even released... and so that's pretty much the only things they allowed themselves to see when they played their first 10 hours.
Uh, wrong. The difference is that ME1's objective WAS NOT to be an open world game full of exploration. Those worlds are there, yes, mostly to be a scenario, but not worth of much exploration, they are only the place you will do the missions. Most parts of the game are on closed walls. That is completely different from ME:A, who promised exploration as one of the main parts of the game and was mostly an attempt to be an open world game Your comparison makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 18, 2024 14:24:31 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2019 20:01:02 GMT
They were not completely empty... not as full as you wanted to be handed to you without even being willing to look for it... and that attitude is not conducive to actual exploration of anything.
The difference between how ME1's empty and almost featureless planets are viewed vs. ME:A's planets (which have more features by far and more different sites on them) is that people entered ME1 with an attitude conducive to "just seeing what the worlds were like." That attitude was just not there for many people starting Andromeda. They started the game with a shopping list of complaints they had been prepping their minds to find long before ME:A even released... and so that's pretty much the only things they allowed themselves to see when they played their first 10 hours.
Uh, wrong. The difference is that ME1's objective WAS NOT to be an open world game full of exploration. Those worlds are there, yes, mostly to be a scenario, but not worth of much exploration, they are only the place you will do the missions. Most parts of the game are on closed walls. That is completely different from ME:A, who promised exploration as one of the main parts of the game and was mostly an attempt to be an open world game Your comparison makes absolutely no sense. The Initiative's motives were all about exploration. There was nothing promised to the player about the game being mainly about the player's exploration of worlds full of loot sites and whatever else you seem to think is missing that makes ME:A's worlds "completely" empty. There are caves, vaults, structures, views, foliage, alien animal species, and unique climate challenges on each planet on whichwe can land. In space, where we can't land, there are wonderfully rendered universe features like black holes, nebulae, and a variety of planetoid types, along with a unique anomaly that plays a key role in the game (the scourge). The game world is still just the set-piece for the game... same as ME1. Also, it's not my comparison... it's a comment about how many others here have stated how ME1's "exploration" is superior to ME:A's. I'm commenting on why, psychologically, I think that's so.
As to how ME:A was an "open-world" game - I believe it was actually stated to be a "semi" open-world game and just more open than previous ME games... which it was. You could drive anywhere within the map areas of the planets on which we could land and those map areas were larger by far than the little maps we got in ME1. In ME2 and ME3, we basically could not go outside the mission area. The nomad was, IMO, a big improvement over the mako and I personally enjoyed driving it around wherever I had the open space just to kick it open and drive. You didn't like it, but you should still be able to admit that the driving mechanic were improved by quite a bit over the mako.
|
|
anarchy65
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 891 Likes: 1,080
inherit
8825
0
1,080
anarchy65
891
Jun 25, 2017 23:54:40 GMT
June 2017
anarchy65
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by anarchy65 on Feb 27, 2019 21:35:14 GMT
Uh, wrong. The difference is that ME1's objective WAS NOT to be an open world game full of exploration. Those worlds are there, yes, mostly to be a scenario, but not worth of much exploration, they are only the place you will do the missions. Most parts of the game are on closed walls. That is completely different from ME:A, who promised exploration as one of the main parts of the game and was mostly an attempt to be an open world game Your comparison makes absolutely no sense. The Initiative's motives were all about exploration. There was nothing promised to the player about the game being mainly about the player's exploration of worlds full of loot sites and whatever else you seem to think is missing that makes ME:A's worlds "completely" empty. There are caves, vaults, structures, views, foliage, alien animal species, and unique climate challenges on each planet on whichwe can land. In space, where we can't land, there are wonderfully rendered universe features like black holes, nebulae, and a variety of planetoid types, along with a unique anomaly that plays a key role in the game (the scourge). The game world is still just the set-piece for the game... same as ME1. Also, it's not my comparison... it's a comment about how many others here have stated how ME1's "exploration" is superior to ME:A's. I'm commenting on why, psychologically, I think that's so.
As to how ME:A was an "open-world" game - I believe it was actually stated to be a "semi" open-world game and just more open than previous ME games... which it was. You could drive anywhere within the map areas of the planets on which we could land and those map areas were larger by far than the little maps we got in ME1. In ME2 and ME3, we basically could not go outside the mission area. The nomad was, IMO, a big improvement over the mako and I personally enjoyed driving it around wherever I had the open space just to kick it open and drive. You didn't like it, but you should still be able to admit that the driving mechanic were improved by quite a bit over the mako.
Gosh, it's hilarious the heights fanboys go to defend this crappy game. Almost everything you said are ENVIRONMENT FEATURES, which, as I said, is sightseeing. If every open world is "full" by having mountains, caves, views and structures, then EVERY OPEN WORLD GAME IS FINE. If making an open world game was that easy, any idiot could make a great open world game. I (and most people) don't play games to do sightseeing and watch animals. And seriously, if you go to the height of denying that ME:A is about exploration, I'm done talking. You said it yourself, the Initiative, the main part of the game, is about exploration, and then you deny that it is about exploration, ugh. Comparing it with ME1 is just stupid.
|
|