BioWare Investigating HUD Changes for Mass Effect 3

I found this little tidbit on gamebanshee where Programmer Brenon Holmes has been making some interesting posts on possible changes. If they change it any more than they did how can it be an rpg?

Link to post-http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/to…0628/4#6772682

We actually had the exact same thought during ME2 development and did a few prototypes of a health and shield indicator in world on Shepard's armour. The end result was not as great as we'd hoped…

It was ok when Shepard was out of cover, like in the image you linked. The issues started to crop up once you popped into cover, with the way that the camera was positioned and with Shepard's orientation changing we had to do some fairly crazy stuff to get the health indicator to display in a reasonable position. Even then it ended up being rather confusing to reference when you were in the middle of a fight. I think if we'd simplified our health system so we only had one meter or bar it might have been easier to represent it on the armour (like on Isaac's back in DS).

All that said, we're still really interested in trying to move information into the world. That's one of the things that I love about Dead Space; the interface… it feels really immersive. I just want to touch the hell out of those buttons . So we are still investigating ways of putting some of our HUD elements into the environment… we'll see what we end up with.

I'd be interested to hear what you guys think might be interesting though… even beyond simple health and shield indicators.

Here is his second Post-

This is well said, and I think is closer to a lot of the stuff we're trying to do. If someone's going to look different, it's because their gameplay is different (or should be), and there is an actual reason for them to look different. This should also be supported by their AI behaviours and general "feel".

I'd really like to go into specifics, but I don't think it's really appropriate just yet.

He also says they're "actively iterating on" the red tendril low-health effect, and thinking about making enemies recognizable without descriptions.

Yes we want to play Masseffect like Deadspace 2 right.? Are better yet follow fable 3. I hate to say it bioware is falling further off my radar with every change to there sequels. But hey they cant rest on thee laurels every game has to different right?

Gotta love bioware marketing for making hate to hype there games. Funny thing is it works.

Mass Effect, since it started, has been a shooter with RPG elements. I don't really mind them making it more and more a shooter because Mass Effect 2 was so damn good. It's not like taking a real RPG and them turning it into a shooter… this was a shooter from the start.

So… no anger here over these posts.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
Mass Effect, since it started, has been a shooter with RPG elements. I don't really mind them making it more and more a shooter because Mass Effect 2 was so damn good. It's not like taking a real RPG and them turning it into a shooter… this was a shooter from the start.

So… no anger here over these posts.

Aye I can agree with that its not anger its just that Bioware cant do sequels right.
Always changing the game were its nothing like its predecessor. See if the formulas not broke why change it. Innovation is good but make a new series with the changes instead.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Aye I can agree with that its not anger its just that Bioware cant do sequels right.
Always changing the game were its nothing like its predecessor. See if the formulas not broke why change it. Innovation is good but make a new series with the changes instead.

I have a pretty straightforward answer for you: Money. Brand recognition and the power of a well-known license are the reasons why Bioware won't create a new IP to implement their new "innovative" ideas. It's much easier to piggy-back off of the success of a proven name than create a brand-new IP - even though there is always a lot of hype and excitement generated when a large company announces the creation of a new franchise.

Originally Posted by Nerevarine
I have a pretty straightforward answer for you: Money. Brand recognition and the power of a well-known license are the reasons why Bioware won't create a new IP to implement their new "innovative" ideas. It's much easier to piggy-back off of the success of a proven name than create a brand-new IP - even though there is always a lot of hype and excitement generated when a large company announces the creation of a new franchise.

Yeah. I have read some executives comment that even a failed IP is better than creating a new one. You save a ton of money on conception and there is brand recognition, which good or bad is better than nothing (supposedly).

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Aye I can agree with that its not anger its just that Bioware cant do sequels right.
Always changing the game were its nothing like its predecessor. See if the formulas not broke why change it. Innovation is good but make a new series with the changes instead.

Because they can make it better? ME2 was a huge improvment over ME1 in game mechanics. Normaly I don't like cover-based shooters but ME2 was a lot of fun. And the core mechanic aka the shooting and the powers were a huge improvement over the first part.

And yes, I like experiments. Even in established series. Sometimes I like those changes a lot (ME2, Civ5), sometimes I can't stand them (C&C4) and sometimes I like/dislike on them equaly (DA2).

Think of all the kids complaining about New Vegas adding factions, lowering skill points and perk frequency and adding in damage threshold. To them Obsidian messed with the Fallout 3 formula when they shouldn't have, but to me Obsidian improved on Fallout 3.

In other words the success of change is relative. You might hate that they messed with your favorite series today but then praise them for improving another series tomorrow. In the end you just HAVE to take every game as its own thing, no matter how hard that is.

That's a lot easier if you are inexperienced in other games. It's completely valid to point out the degradation and convergence of RPGs into FPS's when they are advertised as RPGs.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
That's a lot easier if you are inexperienced in other games. It's completely valid to point out the degradation and convergence of RPGs into FPS's when they are advertised as RPGs.

That is one my points. They Label it RPG when its simply a fps with choices.

Because they can make it better? ME2 was a huge improvment over ME1 in game mechanics. Normaly I don't like cover-based shooters but ME2 was a lot of fun. And the core mechanic aka the shooting and the powers were a huge improvement over the first part.

And yes, I like experiments. Even in established series. Sometimes I like those changes a lot (ME2, Civ5), sometimes I can't stand them (C&C4) and sometimes I like/dislike on them equaly (DA2).

Changes are fine but when a game feels nothing like its predecessor it loses immersion and to me its a deal breaker. Look at C&4 they copied DOW 2 and failed/ Hopefully there new developers victory game adds back base building. That was the core of the game.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
That's a lot easier if you are inexperienced in other games. It's completely valid to point out the degradation and convergence of RPGs into FPS's when they are advertised as RPGs.

They consider it an RPG because it has narrative choices. Bioware reps like Gaider have defined the RPG before as a game where the player has a choice over the story. Of course, how much choice you actually have in a modern Bioware game is another matter

Yes, but when they strip it down to just narrative choices, and all other choices are gone or meaningless, it's not much more than a branching FPS.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Yes, but when they strip it down to just narrative choices, and all other choices are gone or meaningless, it's not much more than a branching FPS.

I agree.

I think if anything makes Mass Effect 2 an RPG it is the different classes and abilities, i.e. you pick a role (sniper, engineer, etc.). That's sort of the same thing that makes Diablo 2 an RPG on some level, picking a class and enhancing its abilities.

In the end though I would more classify ME2 as a shooter with RPG elements, as I am sure most others here would. It doesn't really matter though, does it? It's an awesome game no matter what genre it is in.

I still haven't played the first one. What with REAL RPGs like the Might and Magic series, Risen, SP, and NWN 2 Storm of Zehir in the queue.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
I still haven't played the first one. What with REAL RPGs like the Might and Magic series, Risen, SP, and NWN 2 Storm of Zehir in the queue.

You haven't played Risen yet? That's a must play, imo.

What is "SP"?

Might and Magic is awesome.

Arg, that should have been AP.

Originally Posted by Thrasher
I still haven't played the first one. What with REAL RPGs like the Might and Magic series, Risen, SP, and NWN 2 Storm of Zehir in the queue.

As much as I love RPGs I can't imagine only playing RPGs. That would get stale really quick for me.

I only play RPGs. At least in some form - cRPGs, ARPGs, strategy games with RPG elements, MMORGPs, etc.

In any case, changing the interface in ME2 won't affect the "RPG factor" as far as I'm concerned. I'm more interested in how they're going to do talents/skills.

PS. ME1 > ME2 in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Maylander
PS. ME1 > ME2 in my opinion.

I liked the story, quests and abilities menu in ME1 more, but the basic gunplay and graphics of the second one more. It kind of all evens out in the end.

If ME3 has the story strength of ME1 and the combat of ME2, with maybe some more RPG elements thrown in, it could literally be the perfect shooter/RPG hybrid for me.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
I liked the story, quests and abilities menu in ME1 more, but the basic gunplay and graphics of the second one more. It kind of all evens out in the end.

If ME3 has the story strength of ME1 and the combat of ME2, with maybe some more RPG elements thrown in, it could literally be the perfect shooter/RPG hybrid for me.

Exactly but we all know what we will get. If it cant be fixed pull it out or streamline it more is what Bioware does.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Exactly but we all know what we will get. If it cant be fixed pull it out or streamline it more is what Bioware does.

How can you streamline ME3 any more? They could get rid of the skill improvment and classes. And that's about it.