Twistedpixel said:
Reasonable said:
Grahamhsu said:
Reasonable said:
Can't say for sure on ME2 until I finish it, but on evidence so far around 94% with Uncharted 2 at 96%.
I rate based on how well the game relates to its own goals and then how good it is technically. I think both deliver terrifically against their design goals and compared to what's possible with current gen console tech, although so far I've found ME2 to be just that little bit behind technically. I don't mean graphics as such more looking at frame rate, pop-in, etc. Uncharted 2 just edges the ME2 engine technically so far for me.
To give some more perspective I'd rate few games 100%, but those that have come very close for me would be:
Ico - 98%
Silent Hill 2 - 98%
Flower - 98%
LBP - 98%
Those are the types of games for me that delivered almost perfectly on their design goals and were near enough perfect technically given the console tech they were running on.
|
Umm you've got to be reasonable here =P You just compared a fantastic new engine reused from Uncharted 1 to the Unreal 3.5 Engine...Name me a game without pop-in or has extremely good framerate besides Shadow Complex that uses Unreal. It's a easy win for Uncharted engine always =P
|
That was their choice. They could have developed a new engine or a game specific engine if they chose - other developers do.
They decided to use middleware and while I take that into account the fact remains that as a result of their decision technically the game isn't quite as solid. I am cutting them slack as, to be honest, if I then questioned the relatively small environments vs the ambition of the game vs what is possible I'd drop the score another few points. Given what ME is trying to be from a design standpoint I'm not sure the Unreal engine was the best choice from a level point of view, although I'm sure it helped them with the shooting design choices.
|
How do you know what the design goals were if you don't have access to the design documents? In addition how do you know precisely what current generation consoles are capable of? Do you rate early generation games lower because they are less ambitious technically?
For example, Uncharted 2 is designed around the console and the gameplay reflects technical tradeoffs whereas Mass Effect 2 doesn't make as many trade-offs and the design on paper could have had more improvement had they spent more money/time fleshing out the world/gameplay. However it does appear they achieved about the same content, its just that Uncharted 2 is more concentrated whereas Mass Effect 2 has it more spread out.
The likely reason why Unreal Engine 3 was used for Mass Effect was because it enabled Bioware to create and prototype content faster than had they gone with a proprietary engine. Thats the major benefit to the engine, so had they used their own they may not have had the tools to create as much content for the game. A well done UE3 game tends to have a lot of content for the time spent by developers relative to a proprietary engine with a less developed tool chain.
|
1 - there's these things called making of's, interviews, articles, etc. which communicate a great deal regarding design goals - just like films. If a game interests me enough I'll seek them out and watch them. Maybe you should - they can be very informative.
2 - just like understanding a film you can just play a game or you can deconstruct it to see what makes it tick. Compare design decisions to other games, etc. I consider myself just as able to do this as produce disertations on Kubrick films. I've also worked on mods, built and released levels (on Unreal engine ironically enough) and know how to code/develop working in the software industry. In short, I consider myself very capable of discerning a developers goals, as well as being able to see where they were unclear or weak or just poorly realised. The result is poor gameplay or weaker overall structure: it tends to stand out.
3 - it's pretty clear from my comments that of course I don't mark down older stuff. That's the point - you consider it relative to its time and what was possible. Ico was amazing at the time on PS2, and I still judge it as such. Heck, while I enjoy lot's of the best games today I also consider many titles that came before them superior overall when taken in context - titles like System Shock 1 & 2, Doom and Quake, Deus Ex, Elite, etc. etc.
Your second two paragraphs are fine, but again that was Bioware's choice. I'm the consumer. If they decide to use middleware to cut costs and the final result is buggier that's their problem and my bone of contention to point out. ME2 isn't horrible technically by a long shot, but it's not as clean as Uncharted 2 either. ND chose to build an engine from scratch. I'm not aware they had to. This was their choice based on how they operate. Obviously ND have plenty of access to Sony technicians, but I doubt Bioware or EA would have to shout very loud to get equal assistence from MS (which is to MS credit).
Really, I don't see the point of your post - other than the sense you felt I was somehow slighting Mass Effect 2 by seeing it as a 94% title - wow, what a slight. Or pointing out factual technial flaws - how outragous. Or recognising a slightly superior piece of coding as being, well, superior.
As far as I'm concerned, every point I made stands.
