74 réponses à ce sujet

[Spinotech]

In regards to the first question, I enjoyed both ME1 and ME2 exploration for different reasons.

ME1 pros: Actually felt like exploring the galaxy and made it seem empty, some dialogue, communication with Admiral Hackett, Thresher Maws, Mako's weaponry and good defenses (compared to Hammerhead)

ME1 cons: Driving over mountains with Mako, mineral deposits all over thereby requiring me to spend most of the mission driving around, repetitive structures, missions could be more relavent to main storyline

ME2 pros: Each anomaly planet was unique, the idea of probing planets and refueling the Normandy, Hammerhead manueverability, no driving over mountains

ME2 cons: No dialogue, mainly just kill enemy missions, lack of connection to main storyline, implementation of probing and refueling, Hammerhead's weak defenses

With that said, I think ME3 exploration should have a combination of features namely dialogue, better communication, unique planets and structures.  Also imporatant, in my opinion, would be a better connection to the storyline and a more diverse set of explorable planets.

Regarding sidequest integration with the main story, I think the explorable planets should have more connection to the main quest.  Several possibilities could include: investigating planets with evidence of past civiilizations wiped out by the Reapers, recovering key Cerberus personnel that are crucial to the Cerberus response against the reapers (if Shepard is still working with Cerberus), maintaining and protecting key Alliance installations that can help in the fight against the Reapers, defending against Reaper invasion of imporatant data sites, helping other alien races out at key locations (for example maybe preventing an assasination of Wrex on Tuchanka by the Blood Pack and taking down those responsible to ensure that the Krogan remain unified against the Reaper threat).

Lastly, regarding diverse explorable planets and vehicular exploration I think planets should be classified into several classes that could correlate to the type of exploration features and to make the universe more unique.  For example:

class A planet: Cleary defined area for exploration that is linear, on foot like the ME2 anomaly planets

class B planet: Open with defined boundaries on the outskirts that is less linear than class A, like ME1 exploration with the Mako, but smaller and with less uneven terrain

class C planet: Open with less defined boundaries on the outskirts that is slightly less linear than the class B planet, has either uneven terrain or threats of lava or acid, some platforming, like Hammerhead missions & Overlord

[TheShadowWolf911]

bigger cities.



other then that, i don't care (i would however, like to find more things, things that aren't useless.)

[Il Divo]

To be honest, I thought they were both pretty terrible. If they're going to do side quests, they should be Kotor/Jade Empire level quality. Acting as a Jedi investigator, acting in the play, etc, were really fun/innovative ideas for side quest, which the Mass Effect series lacks.

Freedom/exploration works well in RPGs when it feels like there is not a pressing need to move things along. With the Reaper threat on the horizon, I don't think it's a great time to reintroduce mineral gathering/planet exploration back into the equation which I think Casey Hudson may be doing unfortunately. Traveling across the galaxy because of a biotic cult will make even less sense than it did in Mass Effect 1.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 août 2010 - 04:12 .

[Spinotech]

Il Divo wrote...

To be honest, I thought they were both pretty terrible. If they're going to do side quests, they should be Kotor/Jade Empire level quality. Acting as a Jedi investigator, acting in the play, etc, were really fun/innovative ideas for side quest, which the Mass Effect series lacks.

Freedom/exploration works well in RPGs when it feels like there is not a pressing need to move things along. With the Reaper threat on the horizon, I don't think it's a great time to reintroduce mineral gathering/planet exploration back into the equation which I think Casey Hudson may be doing unfortunately. Traveling across the galaxy because of a biotic cult will make even less sense than it did in Mass Effect 1.

I have not played either of those two games, but it sounds like they had detailed sidequests.  I guess with ME you are either just killing enemies (ME 2 sidequests) or driving over mountains (ME1 sidequests).  Of course I primarily play FPS games, so I suppose that is why I did not mind the killing of enemies in ME2 sidequests, though I admit, they could have been more detailed and innovative.

As per your second paragraph, that's why I think ME3 sidequests need to have a better connection to the main plot or at least some impact even if it only means the difference of one minor character living or dying.  If the lack of connection that sidequests have to the main mission continue, then the exploration system will seem strange when Harbinger is assuming direct control of everything.

Modifié par Spinotech, 07 août 2010 - 04:28 .

[Il Divo]

Spinotech wrote...

I have not played either of those two games, but it sounds like they had detailed sidequests.  I guess with ME you are either just killing enemies (ME 2 sidequests) or driving over mountains (ME1 sidequests).  Of course I primarily play FPS games, so I suppose that is why I did not mine the killing enemies in ME2 sidequests, though I admit, they could have been more detailed and innovative.

I don't mind killing stuff either. The games I mentioned do have some side quests with that as the focus. But I definitely think that Mass Effect 1/2 are very lacking in the side quest department. I play Mass Effect 1 for a good plot with decent characters and Mass Effect 2 for great characters and a decent plot. Both really shoot themselves in the foot for the side quest areas though. I'd like to see that shifted.

As per your second paragraph, that's why I think ME3 sidequests need to h
ave a better connection to the main plot or at least some impact even if it only means the difference of one minor character living or dying.  If the lack of connection that sidequests have to the main mission continue, then the exploration system will seem strange when Harbinger is assuming direct control of everything.

I definitely agree with this. I'd prefer fewer, but far more detailed side quests than the other way around, especially if they're connected to the main story. That way, if I decide to do a side quest instead of blowing up Harbinger straight away, it won't seem quite so odd/out of place.  

[CARL_DF90]

I totally agree with Spinotech on this. Sidequests with more direct connections with the main plot, i.e. with war against the Reapers would be the way to go!

[Lumikki]

If you want more exploration in ME3 then ask. Don't start again this ME1 vs ME2 wars. I ask this because in long run it doesn't do good to anyone. I would like to see more exploration in ME3, but so that it's also main story related.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 août 2010 - 05:34 .

[Simpfan]

Exploration is not needed at all.

I did not miss "exploring" in ME2, and I will not miss it in ME3.

[JakePT]

Exploring in ME3 should basically be Overlord.

[bjdbwea]

Which game has better exploration? Given that ME 2 has none at all, the answer should be pretty obvious.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 08 août 2010 - 06:58 .

[TH1990]

i wouldnt mind exploring as long as we dont have to do boring stuff like finding all the metals and gasses etc, maybe tone down the side quests to about 20 or something but make them extensive and different, mass effect 1's side quests where the epitome of boredom, some quests were fine but most were just explloring 20 bases which all looked similar and route out the enemy, combine mass effect 2's difference in planets, i should also think we should control the new spacecraft in the third and fly it in each planet its faster and sure beats the hell out of the mako

[theelementslayer]

Overlord style, that was awesome

[Simpfan]

kzzrn wrote...

Exploration is not needed at all.

I did not miss "exploring" in ME2, and I will not miss it in ME3.

Where's your sense of adventure?

If I wanted adventure, Id play an MMO.
The exploration to me always seemed tacked on and unnecessary.
It was nothing more than a flawed attempt to justify the mako which in itself was a flawed attempt to make missions longer. There are only 5 main missions- Therum, Noveria, Feros, Virmire and Ilos, and their only purpose is to drive on a track to the next part of the mission.
If they ever brought back "exploring" I would only support an Overlord style, where the landscape would be essentially a hub with access to different missions done thru travel onboard a vehicle of some sort. But to go back to an ME1 style exploration would be a major step in the wrong direction and a waste of valuable space that could be replaced with something way more important.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Spinotech wrote...

As per your second paragraph, that's why I think ME3 sidequests need to h
ave a better connection to the main plot or at least some impact even if it only means the difference of one minor character living or dying.  If the lack of connection that sidequests have to the main mission continue, then the exploration system will seem strange when Harbinger is assuming direct control of everything.

I definitely agree with this. I'd prefer fewer, but far more detailed side quests than the other way around, especially if they're connected to the main story. That way, if I decide to do a side quest instead of blowing up Harbinger straight away, it won't seem quite so odd/out of place.  

I actually disagree with this. I'd prefer a wide range of sidequests of differing types and lengths, from simple single conversation and A to B collection/delivery quests all the way through N7 style missions and a few UNC worlds and up to Overlord and BDtS epic sidequests. If all sidequests were pretty much the same length it just makes the universe seem fake and less real.

And the same goes for missions tying into the main story. The reason I do sidequests is to take a break from the main story, not do more of it. In ME2 I was sick of everything having to do with Cerberus all the time... I wanted to get out there and just do some random missions that had nothing to do with anything else. More stuff like BDtS where it's just completely independent of everything else. To me sidequests lose their point if they link with the main quest too much, and this was one of ME2's failings, IMO: it did this too often and there wasn't enough original stuff to simply take a breather from it all for a while.

I think ME1 did exploration better, but it could have still done with some work. ME2's exploration was almost non-existent: everything was too small and linear. If I had to point to the thing that did it best, it would actually be the Overlord DLC. Even if we got a bunch of planets that just consisted of something akin to the main HUB of Overlord it would be a huge step up. Overlord really did take the best of the UNC worlds and the best of the N7 Missions, cut the crap and left us with the good stuff.

In ME3 I'd like to see a mix of some Overlord style missions/locations (being the majority), as well as a new N7 missions with some proper UNC style set-ups and presentation (i.e. dialogue, NPCs, moral choices, squaddies input, etc.) and a few UNC worlds with some unique bases (just to bring back the vast, sprawling nothingness that felt like real space exploration, which was completely missing in ME2). Also, make the main quest worlds a little more branchy and open and less like winding, linear corridors. These places need to feel real and not just like game levels.

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 août 2010 - 10:47 .

[theelementslayer]

Terror_K wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Spinotech wrote...

As per your second paragraph, that's why I think ME3 sidequests need to h
ave a better connection to the main plot or at least some impact even if it only means the difference of one minor character living or dying.  If the lack of connection that sidequests have to the main mission continue, then the exploration system will seem strange when Harbinger is assuming direct control of everything.

I definitely agree with this. I'd prefer fewer, but far more detailed side quests than the other way around, especially if they're connected to the main story. That way, if I decide to do a side quest instead of blowing up Harbinger straight away, it won't seem quite so odd/out of place.  

I actually disagree with this. I'd prefer a wide range of sidequests of differing types and lengths, from simple single conversation and A to B collection/delivery quests all the way through N7 style missions and a few UNC worlds and up to Overlord and BDtS epic sidequests. If all sidequests were pretty much the same length it just makes the universe seem fake and less real.

And the same goes for missions tying into the main story. The reason I do sidequests is to take a break from the main story, not do more of it. In ME2 I was sick of everything having to do with Cerberus all the time... I wanted to get out there and just do some random missions that had nothing to do with anything else. More stuff like BDtS where it's just completely independent of everything else. To me sidequests lose their point if they link with the main quest too much, and this was one of ME2's failings, IMO: it did this too often and there wasn't enough original stuff to simply take a breather from it all for a while.

I think ME1 did exploration better, but it could have still done with some work. ME2's exploration was almost non-existent: everything was too small and linear. If I had to point to the thing that did it best, it would actually be the Overlord DLC. Even if we got a bunch of planets that just consisted of something akin to the main HUB of Overlord it would be a huge step up. Overlord really did take the best of the UNC worlds and the best of the N7 Missions, cut the crap and left us with the good stuff.

In ME3 I'd like to see a mix of some Overlord style missions/locations (being the majority), as well as a new N7 missions with some proper UNC style set-ups and presentation (i.e. dialogue, NPCs, moral choices, squaddies input, etc.) and a few UNC worlds with some unique bases (just to bring back the vast, sprawling nothingness that felt like real space exploration, which was completely missing in ME2). Also, make the main quest worlds a little more branchy and open and less like winding, linear corridors. These places need to feel real and not just like game levels.

^ Agreement. ME3 would be amazing like this

[Vena_86]

The question should be which game did have exploration.

[Canned Bullets]

A mixture of all types of exploration would be awesome. For vehicle exploration parts we should have the Hammerhead, except the Hammerhead would have the durability of the Mako and the Mako's armament. Also the Hammerhead would have to be weather resistance. If the Mako was dropped on Lattesh instead of the hover tank there would be no need to worry about the engine freezing up. Whcih may not be possible due to the Hammerhead's design.

[Spartas Husky]

talked about this long ago.



Overlord, is prime example of the explorations. Maybe 50% bigger, and of course with actual enemies to fight, not some space cows for target practice and 8 turrets.



Can't explain it better.



Smaller than just empty landspaces, accurate to your mission. ANd a couple of bases.



Just like in Overlrod there are prefab shelers, available to be entered. But different ones, some bunkers, some bases, pirates.... think is not hard BIoware to come up with 5 different skins for bases. You got prefab shelters, you got pirate (me1) bases. You got ME2 bunker like (final station where VI is), you got Big door in some valley to enter some base (exiting the main base in Overlrod, look back, that is exactly what you see)... and maybe a guerilla encampment like the mission in virmire to infiltrate the cloning base, enemies in rivers and the like. There I came up with 5 for ya BIoware.



Is not incredibly big, and doesn't have to be that detailed as Overlord, drop the graphics a bit not a big deal.



IN other words, half the size of maps in ME1 planets... hell just 1/4. With bases as in ME2.. there I came up with planet exploring for ME3.... BIoware, any checks would be appreciated.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...


And the same goes for missions tying into the main story. The reason I do sidequests is to take a break from the main story, not do more of it. In ME2 I was sick of everything having to do with Cerberus all the time... I wanted to get out there and just do some random missions that had nothing to do with anything else. More stuff like BDtS where it's just completely independent of everything else. To me sidequests lose their point if they link with the main quest too much, and this was one of ME2's failings, IMO: it did this too often and there wasn't enough original stuff to simply take a breather from it all for a while.

And I actually felt the opposite from this. I didn't consider doing side jobs for Cerberus to be 'forwarding the main quest'. Overall, I felt the game was weaker for it. Side quests which branch off entirely from the main story are fine and dandy when plot-wise there doesn't seem to be a time limit. Mass Effect's plot is 'Get to the Conduit before Saren'. Whether I do side quests before/after Feros, before/after Virmire, or before Ilos, there's always this awkward feeling of "Why am I doing this when the universe is at stake?" Tying side quests with the narrative removes this issue.

[Whatever42]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...


And the same goes for missions tying into the main story. The reason I do sidequests is to take a break from the main story, not do more of it. In ME2 I was sick of everything having to do with Cerberus all the time... I wanted to get out there and just do some random missions that had nothing to do with anything else. More stuff like BDtS where it's just completely independent of everything else. To me sidequests lose their point if they link with the main quest too much, and this was one of ME2's failings, IMO: it did this too often and there wasn't enough original stuff to simply take a breather from it all for a while.

And I actually felt the opposite from this. I didn't consider doing side jobs for Cerberus to be 'forwarding the main quest'. Overall, I felt the game was weaker for it. Side quests which branch off entirely from the main story are fine and dandy when plot-wise there doesn't seem to be a time limit. Mass Effect's plot is 'Get to the Conduit before Saren'. Whether I do side quests before/after Feros, before/after Virmire, or before Ilos, there's always this awkward feeling of "Why am I doing this when the universe is at stake?" Tying side quests with the narrative removes this issue.

I agree. From a story point-of-view, too many side quests don't make sense. Running around trying to track down Saren and doing 20 quests that had nothing to do with Saren felt rather silly for a while. When a squad mate said "I feel like we're really getting closer to Saren" and I hadn't done a mission in 5 hours of gameplay to track down Saren, I had to laugh.

So there should certainly be a limit on such things. A few certainly don't hurt, to encourage exploration, but so many strain credulity.

Side quests being related to the main mission don't have to be doing things for Cerberus all the time. Perhaps you stumble across a plan of the SB to aid the Collectors and there is a secondary story arc to foil the scheme. It's not the main mission but its related. If you don't do it, it makes zero difference to the main story but it would be reasonable for Shepard to make the time.

Of course, there is no reason that secondary missions have no impact on the main plot either. Perhaps instead of just having crew members give you new ship technology, you have to search for it. That would provide a reason for exploration, to delay the main mission, and even provide a few mission to obtain it.

But I know totally unrelated side missions are a standard RPG trope - a reward for exploration. Play fallout 3 and 90% of the game are side missions unrelated to the main mission. But I think a clever writer could tie the whole game together better.

[SSV Enterprise]

Neither had truly good exploration.  Good exploration, IMHO, is when you explore an area, accomplish whatever tasks, and then have reason to return.  This is what gives the exploration in games such as, for example, The Legend of Zelda, their appeal.  In Zelda, you may visit an area of the map early in the game, only to find yourself returning for some sidequest late in the game.  Hyrule feels like a cohesive world with stuff going on.

In ME1, there was none of that.  You would land on a planet, clear out a base of enemies, gather some resources, maybe kill a Thresher Maw, and leave.  Each planet had no environmental differences from the other (except story planets).  All the "exploration" was rather pointless.  Why not simply go directly to the enemy base without the sometimes-frustrating Mako to bog things down?

Which is exactly what ME2 did.  It took you straight to the mission target, forgoing the filler Mako driving.  The fact that the areas you visited could not be returned to was irrelevant because, like ME1, once you were done, you had no reason to return!  In fact, I'd hesitate to say ME2 really had exploration.  More like investigation.  Oh, and I wouldn't call planet scanning exploration.  Just a minigame.

Both games had sub par exploration, the only difference being ME1 had more boring parts.

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 09 août 2010 - 01:00 .

[Tazzmission]

depending on how anyone completed mass effect 2 i believe maybe the side quests should all be about cerbrus.. because they can either be for or against you and they do have a hand in specific key things wich i wont reveal becaus ei have no idea if anyone read the new book

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I agree. From a story point-of-view, too many side quests don't make sense. Running around trying to track down Saren and doing 20 quests that had nothing to do with Saren felt rather silly for a while. When a squad mate said "I feel like we're really getting closer to Saren" and I hadn't done a mission in 5 hours of gameplay to track down Saren, I had to laugh.

So there should certainly be a limit on such things. A few certainly don't hurt, to encourage exploration, but so many strain credulity.

Side quests being related to the main mission don't have to be doing things for Cerberus all the time. Perhaps you stumble across a plan of the SB to aid the Collectors and there is a secondary story arc to foil the scheme. It's not the main mission but its related. If you don't do it, it makes zero difference to the main story but it would be reasonable for Shepard to make the time.

Of course, there is no reason that secondary missions have no impact on the main plot either. Perhaps instead of just having crew members give you new ship technology, you have to search for it. That would provide a reason for exploration, to delay the main mission, and even provide a few mission to obtain it.

But I know totally unrelated side missions are a standard RPG trope - a reward for exploration. Play fallout 3 and 90% of the game are side missions unrelated to the main mission. But I think a clever writer could tie the whole game together better.

Exactly. The 'tie-in' doesn't have to be the most brilliant connection in the world. It could be a false lead, a minor connection, etc. With RPGs, we often suspend our disbelief and simply choose to wade through most of the side quests because they're fun, we love xp, etc. But it would be nice if sometimes the average RPG could feature some relevance to the main plot hook which we follow. 

Planescape Torment did this to some degree. Even if every side quest didn't connect to the plot, you would often find an item/artifact which somehow related to your lost memories.  

[Il Divo]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Neither had truly good exploration.  Good exploration, IMHO, is when you explore an area, accomplish whatever tasks, and then have reason to return.  This is what gives the exploration in games such as, for example, The Legend of Zelda, their appeal.  In Zelda, you may visit an area of the map early in the game, only to find yourself returning for some sidequest late in the game.  Hyrule feels like a cohesive world with stuff going on.

In ME1, there was none of that.  You would land on a planet, clear out a base of enemies, gather some resources, maybe kill a Thresher Maw, and leave.  Each planet had no environmental differences from the other (except story planets).  All the "exploration" was rather pointless.  Why not simply go directly to the enemy base without the sometimes-frustrating Mako to bog things down?

Which is exactly what ME2 did.  It took you straight to the mission target, forgoing the filler Mako driving.  The fact that the areas you visited could not be returned to was irrelevant because, like ME1, once you were done, you had no reason to return!  Really, I'd hesitate to say ME2 really had exploration.  More like investigation.  Oh, and I wouldn't call planet scanning exploration.  Just a minigame.

Both games had sub par exploration, the only difference being ME1 had more boring parts.

Oh, and this. Definitely this.

Edit: And as an aside, I should have asked before doing so, but SSV Enterprise, I quoted your post in the "Disapointment with ME2" discussion and gave you credit as the author and where to find the post. I just thought it was relevant since we were just discussing the Mako/exploration, If you find it offensive, I'll take it out.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 août 2010 - 12:56 .