74 réponses à ce sujet

[SithLordExarKun]

iakus wrote...


As far as suggestions go, what do you think?  Is ME 2's "explore the area around the shuttle? really the way to go? Beautiful backgrounds, I'll give you that, but how is it any different than "get into the bunker and "pew pew pew?"  Is there another method you'd endorse? (I do not have Overlord so I can't comment on its exploration capability)

  Its different where one planet feels different from another and not the same planet with a different texture ,skybox and cut and past bunker, the objective may be the same, but the layout, the structure and the advancement in ME2 is varied and much more unique. The only thing that ME1 does better is integrating the side quests with dialogue etc etc.

iakus wrote...
Would ME 1 exploration be better if there were more creatures to encounter?  Not just thresher maws, but other stuff.  Other species of hostile wildlife?  Pirate bases you don't have a quest for, but are still there?  Terrain hazards (like Haestrum's sun?) 

The problem is "fun exploration" is diffiult to substantiate, i felt that both ME1 and ME2's "exploration" was sub par and rather dull, like SSV enterprise mentioned, ME1's "exploration" included useless filler like driving the mako on the same planet with a different texture, while ME2 gets rid of this crap and goes straight to the point. Hence i don't see any exploration in these games.

Did i thinkME2 did it better? No, i just think the worlds felt unique.



The answer is i don't know whats "fun exploration", but i do know that sandbox games like Red dead redemption, FO3 and TES4 had some form of exploration that... actually felt fun, i don't know how to describe it but

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 09 août 2010 - 05:02 .

[Terror_K]

With regards to sidequests and the main story, it's kind of ironic that ME1 had a "race against time" style story and lots of unrelated sidequests while ME2's main plot was far less time-dependent, yet had more quests that (loosely) tied into the main one in some fashion. If ME3's plot retains one where you're not supposed to be up against the clock then I see no reason why we can't get a good mix of sidequests: some which are linked, some which are not. One of the things I did like about ME2 was that it's main plot broke the standard formula a little in that regard. The way ME1 was initially introduced and advertised seem to hint that doing sidequests and wasting time was going to have an effect on the narrative, but sadly it didn't (which just added to the problem of the Renegade being ill-defined and coming across more as a jerk than as somebody actually being more efficient with an "ends justify the means because time is short" attitude.



I still have to say that I'd like at least a few UNC style worlds in ME3. I know they're not fan favourites, but I do miss that vast, empty nothingness that really did make you feel like you were in space exploring the unexplored. Even if we only had four or five and the rest were lush, rich worlds I'd be happy, and I doubt too many people would be put out as long as most worlds are more alive. I'm sure they could even be made a little more interesting by simply making them more than just hills and dips (i.e. some interesting rock formations, perhaps cavern or two, etc.). When every planet you land on seems like a class M world it just doesn't make the universe feel vast and real.

[Super ._. Shepard]

ME2 had more side quests and exploration

[cachx]

With a ME1 playthrough recently finished and fresh on my mind I have to say that ME1 had much more exploration, and I appreciate the bits of dialogue that ME2 lacks on sidequests.

This "exploration" however, felt very hollow and boring very fast (even not taking into account the infuriating controls of the Mako). Going from point A to point B is just a bland, soul-sucking affair. This playthrough was the first one where I skipped Tali's personal mission (where you fight geth on 4 diferent planets), because I simply couldn't muster the will to get me through all the planets.

Sure planets are supposed to be barren and generally uninteresting in real life, but if they are like that, why include them at all? I would say that the only ME1 Mako drive that was actually good was the Asteroid from Bring down the Sky.

I like what Overlord tried to do, because going between point A and B was not a static drive section and it made the journey far more interesting. (Tho some people hated the fact that they had to jump or do other stuff ). The Hammerhead still need a lot of tweaks to be acceptable, but if they follow this line of thinking for ME3 it could be pretty good.

[MonkeyKaboom]

bjdbwea wrote...

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

You're right, ME2 > ME1 and that epic failfest that was the Mako...

[shootist70]

I don't want to see exploration that involves either the Mako or the Hammerhead - both were poor. ME1's Mako explorable environments were too damned empty and repetitive, and the Hammerhead exploration was like a cheap arcade shooter with no sense of immersion, much like the side game in Jade Empire.

Get rid of the fail vehicles altogether - Bioware suck at this. Let us explore with our actual characters. I'd much prefer to have side-missions that involved open world exploration on foot but not the small corridors 'n crates missions from ME2, nor the empty world with a box-of-bad-guys from ME1.

I'd love to see environments such as those in ME1, but far smaller and with more detail, with more involved mission plots. You could stick some great on-foot missions into the geography of the ME1 explorable worlds that involved more combat tactics than just hiding behind crates all the time.

And talking of crates, we need more environmental variety too. You might have been exploring the galaxy in ME2, but it was depressing that most of the stuff you saw looked like the inside of a warehouse, or the same old corridors and doors over and over and over.

Modifié par shootist70, 09 août 2010 - 11:07 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...
Believe me, compared to certain other ME 2 "purists" you are the epitome of reason

I'm not too concerned about "things to do" as far as exploration goes.  To me exploration is doing something. It's finding point C between Points A and B.  It's sensation and immersion, not finding more stuff to kill.  ME 1's was flawed, ME 2's was nonexistant

I personally feel different. That sensation of coming across something unique and meaningful is what makes exploration so enjoyable in the first place. It can surprise you. You might find something rare and valuable...or you might fall in a ditch. Much like the combat itself, it's much better when exploration leads to something else of value beyond itself.  

[tonnactus]

I prefer Mass Effect exploration.Spoken briefings and debriefings and learning something about how for example
L2 biotics were treated by the goverment. I liked that. Mass Effect 2 sidemissions could be described with 2 words:
Boring and pointless.

Modifié par tonnactus, 09 août 2010 - 03:38 .

[Lumikki]

Super ._. Shepard wrote...

ME2 had more side quests and exploration

Not true, ME1 had more side quest, because in general ME1 had more quest in total.

Like I sayed before, I would like to have side quests someway to be connected to main story. I don't mean big ways, but I should have some reason to do the side quests, than just getting experience point. When I go to exploration, then I should have reason to do so. Oh, I'm bored lets look what we can find? Oh there isn't anything else to do, let see what other missions we can find. Those are bad reasons.

Other hand if main story tells that there may be some ancient artifacts lost in some planets what could become usefull and needed in battle's. I could be interesting to find out what they are and  find them. Point is give me small reason to do side quest, more than curiosity and exp.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 août 2010 - 03:44 .

[Vena_86]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Enormity? Sure, lots of squares of randomly generated hills and valleys with no features aside from cut-and-paste bunkers can be considered enormous. It's also incredibly dull. And "land, kill everything that moves, leave" can be said of virtually all ME1 side missions as well.

No.
Not only where several missions solvable without violence, you could also decide from where you approach and  if you want to get into close combat or snipe from far away. This gave you the feeling of beeing in charge and acting like a person within the environment rather then just pulling on the string the developers put into your hands. 
Furthermore, one shouldnt expect a paradise on every planet. Planets with life supporting environments are incredible rare in the universe. Ignoring that as a developer, makes the experience less believable and in return equally dull. Lifeless rockformations are not Mass Effects problem. Interesting things to discover, like ancient technology or background story in some underground lab/hidden complex is what ME1 lacked. But it was still possible to get sucked into the universe while ME2 has no such thing.

Even Doom 1 had better exploration then ME2, since there you atleast had many secret areas to discover.

[SithLordExarKun]

tonnactus wrote...
 Mass Effect 2 sidemissions could be described with 2 words:
Boring and pointless.

Agreed.

[Il Divo]

Vena_86 wrote...

Furthermore, one shouldnt expect a paradise on every planet. Planets with life supporting environments are incredible rare in the universe. Ignoring that as a developer, makes the experience less believable and in return equally dull. Lifeless rockformations are not Mass Effects problem.

When every planet not only looks, but feels the same, then we have a problem. That is why every planet is generic. If they can't all have small colonies, fine. But they still shouldn't all feel like repeats of each other. 
 

Interesting things to discover, like ancient technology or background story in some underground lab/hidden complex is what ME1 lacked. But it was still possible to get sucked into the universe while ME2 has no such thing.

Mass Effect pulling me into the universe had nothing to do with exploring the same tired environments. Feros, Noveria, etc, gave Mass Effect life. Driving to the same merc base ten times in a row eventually loses its novelty. Good exploration requires something interesting to explore.

Even Doom 1 had better exploration then ME2, since there you atleast had many secret areas to discover.

You can't fail at what you don't try. Mass Effect tried and failed. Mass Effect 2 simply didn't make the attempt. I can't say whether they failed or succeeded at this.

[haberman13]

[quote]Vena_86 wrote...

[quote]SSV Enterprise wrote...

Even Doom 1 had better exploration then ME2, since there you atleast had many secret areas to discover.

[/quote]

LOL, epic comment, basically true.

[SSV Enterprise]

Vena_86 wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Enormity? Sure, lots of squares of randomly generated hills and valleys with no features aside from cut-and-paste bunkers can be considered enormous. It's also incredibly dull. And "land, kill everything that moves, leave" can be said of virtually all ME1 side missions as well.

No.
Not only where several missions solvable without violence, you could also decide from where you approach and  if you want to get into close combat or snipe from far away. This gave you the feeling of beeing in charge and acting like a person within the environment rather then just pulling on the string the developers put into your hands.

Ok, so you could switch out the "kill everything that moves" with "talk a little bit".  Still no less formulaic than ME2 (which also had missions that could be resolved without firing a single shot, btw)

And being able to approach from any angle thanks to the size doesn't make the missions and environments themselves any less dull.

Furthermore, one shouldnt expect a paradise on every planet. Planets with life supporting environments are incredible rare in the universe. Ignoring that as a developer, makes the experience less believable and in return equally dull. Lifeless rockformations are not Mass Effects problem. Interesting things to discover, like ancient technology or background story in some underground lab/hidden complex is what ME1 lacked. But it was still possible to get sucked into the universe while ME2 has no such thing.

I completely disagree that ME2 lacked a universe to get sucked into.

Even Doom 1 had better exploration then ME2, since there you atleast had many secret areas to discover.

Planets with uncatalogued "anomalies" should qualify as "secret areas".  That's not my point- the point is that ME1 and ME2 both had lackluster exploration because there was no reason to return to an area again once you left.

[tonnactus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...


Ok, so you could switch out the "kill everything that moves" with "talk a little bit".  Still no less formulaic than ME2 (which also had missions that could be resolved without firing a single shot, btw)

But lack choices. Convince Kyle or kill his cult for example.In Mass Effect 2,the game decide,not the player if the quests ends with blood or not.

[Collider]

Neither of them got it right.

[Ragnarok521]

tonnactus wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...


Ok, so you could switch out the "kill everything that moves" with "talk a little bit".  Still no less formulaic than ME2 (which also had missions that could be resolved without firing a single shot, btw)

But lack choices. Convince Kyle or kill his cult for example.In Mass Effect 2,the game decide,not the player if the quests ends with blood or not.

Yes, many of the sidequests in ME1 added to the role-playing experience on how you resolve situations, or how you decide to react. ME2 is lacking in that it rarely gives Shepard a chance to say something or even hint at his/her personality during sidequests.

Modifié par Ragnarok521, 09 août 2010 - 07:13 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

I'm in favor of no exploration for ME3. All story and missions.



If there's going to be exploration, there has to be something to see or find. ME2's method of little anecdotes was ok. It was much better than the random, horribly jagged terrain in the first one. The hammerhead missions had a good balance of drive and shoot with Things To See. The first game had that great lab on the frozen world and the hammerhead missions had the scenic spots. those were good.

[Iakus]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

The problem is "fun exploration" is diffiult to substantiate, i felt that both ME1 and ME2's "exploration" was sub par and rather dull, like SSV enterprise mentioned, ME1's "exploration" included useless filler like driving the mako on the same planet with a different texture, while ME2 gets rid of this crap and goes straight to the point. Hence i don't see any exploration in these games.

Did i thinkME2 did it better? No, i just think the worlds felt unique.



The answer is i don't know whats "fun exploration", but i do know that sandbox games like Red dead redemption, FO3 and TES4 had some form of exploration that... actually felt fun, i don't know how to describe it but

That's understandable.  I personally did not mind the "sameness" of the planets in ME 1 (found some of the views gorgrous, but that's just me,) but I can understand the desire to make the planets more interesting to look at. Unfortunately, I do not know how many resources it would take to make a square mile of terrain look as unique as the N7 missions, but there were Il Divo had some interesting ideas on the previous page.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...
Believe me, compared to certain other ME 2 "purists" you are the epitome of reason

I'm not too concerned about "things to do" as far as exploration goes.  To me exploration is doing something. It's finding point C between Points A and B.  It's sensation and immersion, not finding more stuff to kill.  ME 1's was flawed, ME 2's was nonexistant

I personally feel different. That sensation of coming across something unique and meaningful is what makes exploration so enjoyable in the first place. It can surprise you. You might find something rare and valuable...or you might fall in a ditch. Much like the combat itself, it's much better when exploration leads to something else of value beyond itself.  

I agree.  I just meant that I believe expoloration isn't being sent out to find something, but to be able to wander over on your own and find something.  Maybe it's pertinent to a quest.  Maybe not.  One of the coolest things I ever found was on a side mission, and I came across an "Odd Skull"  It was an unknown species, no quest for it, just a wierd thing you find lying on  the ground.

There's also something to be said for a game that lets you stand on the edge of a cliff and enjoy a scenic, if computerized, waterfall and go "That's nea!t"  sometimes exploration rewards you with extra goodies; extra items, information you might not otherwise have found.  Sometimes it's a punch in the nose.  Sometimes it's just the satisfaction of saying. "Yeah, I did that"

[SSV Enterprise]

tonnactus wrote...

SSV Enterprise wrote...


Ok, so you could switch out the "kill everything that moves" with "talk a little bit".  Still no less formulaic than ME2 (which also had missions that could be resolved without firing a single shot, btw)

But lack choices. Convince Kyle or kill his cult for example.In Mass Effect 2,the game decide,not the player if the quests ends with blood or not.

Every loyalty mission had choices, and the occasional N7 mission did as well.  (sending Cerberus or the Alliance the data mercenaries got from a captured Cerberus agent, letting a nuclear missile hit either a spaceport or a colony)

[SithLordExarKun]

What the f*ck? Spam kunt.

[tonnactus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...



Every loyalty mission had choices, )

Right. Except if the player wants to solve a problem with combat or talking.( a decent amount of combat/not such things
like pushing one merc out of the window or let him go)

[linkrulesx10]

Main problem with ME1 sidequests was as said before they were monotonous and all very similar I remember I gave up on them after I entered the same base design three times in a row.

However we do need some bigger cities like the citadel in ME 1

Modifié par linkrulesx10, 10 août 2010 - 12:18 .