Mass Effect 2 - No More Elevators

Why not make the elevator rides more interesting?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4u5om4xihU

Gooiiing dooown….

Dhruin said:

My problem with the elevators was their quest and hub design.

Click to expand...

Well this is absolutely true. But, of course, loading screens would have been just as frustrating. So perhaps the backlash the elevators got was really backlash at this design failing or at loading times in general.

I guess it boils down to how much the elevator rides added to the loading times once all the dialogue/news had run out.

Edit: This makes me think of one time years and years ago when I called Dell support about an unrelated issue right after they switched the default from the classic POST info to a splash screen. I asked the level 2 tech, "Why did they do that?". He said they did focus groups and people seemed to think it took less time to boot when they had a big Dell logo to look at instead of the POST data, even though it was the same actual time. I was flabbergasted. So instead of something actually useful, I get something useless, all because people are misdirecting their impatience.

Why is the debate is focused on how Mass Effect handles loading sequences rather than why Bioware has them at all? Loading screens … for crying out loud! Gothic came out about eight years ago and Bioware can't stream an even smaller (and blander) environment like Citadel Station into a modern system's memory? That's crude, so very, very crude.

Cassius said:

Why is the debate is focused on how Mass Effect handles loading sequences rather than why Bioware has them at all? Loading screens … for crying out loud! Gothic came out about eight years ago and Bioware can't stream an even smaller (and blander) environment like Citadel Station into a modern system's memory? That's crude, so very, very crude.

Click to expand...

An efficient streaming engine is one of the hardest things to achieve, which is why the vast majority of games don't have them.

You're obviously not concerned with knowing what you're talking about, but there are reasons beyond crudeness for loading areas in large separate segments.

DArtagnan said:

An efficient streaming engine is one of the hardest things to achieve, which is why the vast majority of games don't have them.

Click to expand...

Well, quite a lot of AAA games on PC and console are based on the Gamebryo engine which is a streaming engine so it's actually not that hard to achieve. You just buy a Gamebryo licence and you're good to go .

Moriendor said:

Well, quite a lot of AAA games on PC and console are based on the Gamebryo engine which is a streaming engine so it's actually not that hard to achieve. You just buy a Gamebryo licence and you're good to go .

Click to expand...

You mean "efficient" streaming like Oblivion and Morrowind? If that's effective streaming, then let's just say we have different opinions on efficiency.

That said, Gamebryo isn't a "streaming engine". It's just an engine. The above mentioned games divided areas into larger cells that loaded based on whatever Bethesda did with that engine. But in my opinion, they failed horribly. Fallout 3 was better, but still not ideal.

In fact, I can count on one hand the amount of efficient streaming engines used in complex CRPGs - but as must be the case, our ideas of efficient differs quite a bit.

I have to admit, loading times are generally a huge drawback for me. Almost gamebreaking if they're long enough. The Witcher, NWN1/2, certain places in ME, and to some extend DAO all contain examples of loading times that are either too frequent, too long or both.

I understand why games are designed and developed in modules. However, there must be ways to improve the performance, and I really hope we see less loading in the future (or simply a lot of initial loading - I don't mind that at all).

I agree completely, and I'm HUGE fan of streaming engines.

But it's damn hard to achieve in a complex environment, because you need to deal with NPC logic and all kinds of nightmarish crap which is an excessive amount of book-keeping in terms of what to keep in memory and what to "throw out" at what point.

It's a big deal making an efficient streaming engine with complex game logic.

Then there's the whole console angle, where they need to take into account slow drives and limited memory.

DArtagnan said:

You mean "efficient" streaming like Oblivion and Morrowind? If that's effective streaming, then let's just say we have different opinions on efficiency.

Click to expand...

Yep. Looks like we do. If you had a decent system at the time these games were released the streaming was not noticeable.
We don't even need to talk about the current situation on modern rigs. Both games can be run at high resolutions and full detail without a hitch on modern hardware.
Or what did you mean by "efficient" streaming (or the lack thereof rather)?
If you meant that there is still too much loading going on then I'd agree. It would have been cool if the cities and the interior of buildings would have loaded seamlessly as well. But it is obvious that Bethesda was pushing modern (at the time) hardware to its limits when MW and OB were released so it's a safe guess that they had to make some compromises as far as Gamebryo's streaming capabilities are concerned.

That said, Gamebryo isn't a "streaming engine".

Click to expand...

It isn't? From here (Gamebryo feature listing):

Fast Load Times. Support for background loading allows smooth loading of files during gameplay with no apparent load times and Small Memory Footprint.

Click to expand...

Of course no developer is forced to use those streaming capabilities. That's the nice thing about Gamebryo. It is said to be extremely flexible and customizable. The streaming (you may also want to google "Floodgate technology + Gamebryo" in that context) is one of the major engine features, however.

Moriendor said:

Yep. Looks like we do. If you had a decent system at the time these games were released the streaming was not noticeable.
We don't even need to talk about the current situation on modern rigs. Both games can be run at high resolutions and full detail without a hitch on modern hardware.

Click to expand...

I had a top of the line system at the time, and I have a top of the line system now.

It's aggrevatingly bad and it always was. They load cells in the background, which not only makes the game visibly stutter (yes, it still does that) - but also makes terrain EXTREMELY obviously pop-up in the background.

In my opinion, it looks like crap.

Or what did you mean by "efficient" streaming (or the lack thereof rather)?
If you meant that there is still too much loading going on then I'd agree. It would have been cool if the cities and the interior of buildings would have loaded seamlessly as well. But it is obvious that Bethesda was pushing modern (at the time) hardware to its limits when MW and OB were released so it's a safe guess that they had to make some compromises as far as Gamebryo's streaming capabilities are concerned.

Click to expand...

No, Bethesda is simply taking the easy way out which is their entire design philosopy - once you pass their number one priority, which is "must impress people as much as possible, before they notice the game isn't half of what it seems".

Of course no developer is forced to use those streaming capabilities. That's the nice thing about Gamebryo. It is said to be extremely flexible and customizable. The streaming (you may also want to google "Floodgate technology + Gamebryo" in that context) is one of the major engine features, however.

Click to expand...

I'm sure it's a marketed feature - but effective streaming doesn't just happen by licensing an engine.

Believe it or not, but the Unreal 3 engine was originally intended to be used for advanced streaming - and yet no one seems to be using streaming with that engine.