150 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

UNC Assignments: Better narrative



N7 Missions: Better gameplay



So, what does Bioware need to do for ME3? Gee, I wonder!

[Terror_K]

Pacifien wrote...

I'm trying to figure out how the Helena Blake mission wasn't merc shooting.

It was, but it wasn't just merc shooting, and there were several ways to handle the situation, there was dialogue and moral choices, and Helena herself was an interesting character, as was the premise. All of which were things the N7 missions really weren't and lacked.

Merc shooting isn't bad, but when that's all there is to it it is. It's about the presentation and form it takes more than what it is.

[GracefulChicken]

Personally, I liked the N7 missions way more. I'd rather do 30 N7's than 2 UNC missions any day of the week. The Mako was horrible and tedious at best, and frustrating and downright stupid at worst. I agree N7s didn't have as much story (some did, but you had to look for it, and it was easy to miss), but the improved environments made up for it and then some. With UNC missions, by the time I inched my way over a ridiculously steep mountain in the Mako and reached my destination, I just wanted it to be over with, story be damned. I got tired of looking at the sky (the only visually interesting bit on most planets) after 10 seconds. Roaming around a planet with the same buildings on every one got really really boring after 5 or 6 UNC missions. N7 missions have puzzles, Hammerhead missions even had platforming (platforming! In an rpg!).

That being said, I did like the setup and finding of UNC missions more. I didn't like having to randomly scan planets looking for N7s (and I actually don't mind planet scanning at all. I don't think its nearly as bad as people say it is). I liked going into a cluster and having Hackett come over the comm and actually tell you there's something to look for, rather than just scanning and hoping there'd be an anomaly. If in ME3 sidequests are N7-like environments with a UNC-like introduction (UNC-like story would just be icing on the cake for me, I'd like it but I could do without), I'd be more than satisfied. Still, given a choice between the two, I'd pick N7 anytime.

That being said,

[Nightwriter]

GracefulChicken wrote...

I agree N7s didn't have as much story (some did, but you had to look for it, and it was easy to miss)

No dialogue wheel, no story.

I agree the UNC's could be tedious in regards to terrain, but there is nothing about them that I would change at the sacrifice of story.

[Cra5y Pineapple]

Plots of the UNC, everything else of the N7.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

Pacifien wrote...

But there is so much about the N7 quest designs that is above and beyond the UNC quests. There is variety in enemy, terrain, objective.

^this is exactly why, to me, the ME2 quests >>>> ME1 quests. The terrain is HORRIBLE in ME1.

[Rojahalive]

I dream of an ME where all side quests are like Overlord. The whole time I was doing that DLC, I couldn't help but feel it had the elements of an ME1 quest (exploration, vehicle and ground combat, side story, illusion of non-linearity) combined with the high quality, fun gameplay, and engaging presentation of ME2.

Modifié par Rojahalive, 31 octobre 2010 - 02:24 .

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
No dialogue wheel, no story.

Zaeed: doesn't tell stories.

Just because you weren't presented with a dialogue wheel doesn't mean there wasn't a story. It simply means it didn't have a story you could be bothered about reading. That's a gameplay issue: present the story in a better fashion.

[Quething]

Pacifien wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
No dialogue wheel, no story.

Zaeed: doesn't tell stories.

Well, he's not interactive, anyway. You can't tell him he's a sick bastard, or laugh along with him, or comment in any way at all. You can't influence how his monologues play out. I've seen people say they mind Kasumi's lack of wheel less than Zaeed's, and sitting here thinking about it, I bet that's why - the player can actually do things to change it. Zaeed will always tell you the same exact stories, comment on Garrus and Jack in exactly the same way. Kasumi's comments about Chakwas, Zaeed, the potential LIs, and Liara, all change from playthrough to playthrough depending on the choices you make in game. It's still not much, it's not direct enough, but it's better than Zaeed.

It's all about player control. This is a game, not a movie or a novel. The player is helping to tell the story. If you take that away from her, of course she's going to feel like there's no story there... there may still be one, but it isn't the one she was playing, and she's going to be more worried about where that one has gone and how to get it back than she is the new one you're offering her that she's got no part in.

Modifié par Quething, 31 octobre 2010 - 09:21 .

[GracefulChicken]

I disagree, Nightwriter (I'd quote but I'm on my phone so I'm forced to quick reply and can't use quotes, sorry). I think there was definately story to N7 missions, even without a dialogue wheel ever popping up. Sure, you couldn't shape it into what you wanted like plot missions, but the N7 with the Comm Beacons come to mind (with the lasers pointing your destination through the fog). There was obviously a short story if you read the Data Pads laying around. People getting abducted by "those damn bugs" while setting up beacons and mining, a thresher maw appearance (even if it was non-combat), Vorcha "disappearing" into the fog, etc. Or protecting that injured Quarian from Varren waves in another N7 (or setting up shields for an Earth colony, or disabling Merc facilitys, the list goes on and on). There were short storys involved, even if you couldn't directly interact with them. Sure I'd like that changed, but I don't think it was a step backwards from UNC missions. Not a step forward (in terms of storytelling, atleast), but certainly a parallel step if that makes sense. And I still felt the N7 missions had some weight behind them if you looked at it from a galatic well-being standpoint. Most people don't know about (or believe in) the Reapers, but they know about Blood Pack and Eclipse, so if Shepherd is really such a swell guy/gal, he/she would probably do something about those if he/she just stumbled across them which is how N7 missions worked.

Of course you're free to disagree with me, this is just my opinion.

[primero holodon]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

I just want to add another aspect:

I think ME2 improves the overall cohesion of the game. In ME1 the UNC-mission were very distinct from the campaign missions or sidequests on the hubs. It didn't feel connected, especially because the planets were simple height-maps with prefabs thrown in whereas the campaign levels were in part very beautiful and carefully designed.
In ME2 the quality of the N7-mission is so improved that many feel like they could actually be a part of the main mission, or at least the recruiting and loyalty ones.
So, the game feels more like its being in one universe rather than two, which are vaguely connected via the journal but not visually. If you see what i mean.

That is a good thing.

how does the N7 missions come anything close to being more related to the main story than the UNC missions? I'm sorry but it's just as hard to believe Shepard, without any prompting, would stop his efforts to prepare the crew for a suicide mission just to put batteries into an abandoned mech in the middle of an uncharted world. at least in ME1 Shepard had reason to do side missions seeing as how he was briefed by the alliance, who he was still a part of. and for those of you who say the N7 missions have good story and plot, delivering important plot information in video games through text walls wasn't effective when doom was made and won't be any more effective now.

[Pacifien]

primero holodon wrote...
*snip*and for those of you who say the N7 missions have good story and plot, delivering important plot information in video games through text walls wasn't effective when doom was made and won't be any more effective now.

To say that the N7 missions had good stories doesn't necessarily mean I believe the stories were presented well. (And really, I'm a bit iffy on the UNC/N7 missions being good stories, but notice I include both there.) It all goes back to my usual ramble about how people need to really understand what they don't like about something in order to make a sufficient critique of how to improve it. The stories behind the N7 missions were interesting, but they are presented poorly, i.e. through text.

I've actually already gone through how I thought the UNC/N7 missions should be done in ME3 (on the first page no less), so I suppose I keep responding to this thread out of habit. Blasted.

[primero holodon]

Pacifien wrote...

primero holodon wrote...
*snip*and for those of you who say the N7 missions have good story and plot, delivering important plot information in video games through text walls wasn't effective when doom was made and won't be any more effective now.

To say that the N7 missions had good stories doesn't necessarily mean I believe the stories were presented well. (And really, I'm a bit iffy on the UNC/N7 missions being good stories, but notice I include both there.) It all goes back to my usual ramble about how people need to really understand what they don't like about something in order to make a sufficient critique of how to improve it. The stories behind the N7 missions were interesting, but they are presented poorly, i.e. through text.

I've actually already gone through how I thought the UNC/N7 missions should be done in ME3 (on the first page no less), so I suppose I keep responding to this thread out of habit. Blasted.

perhaps I should clarify, the part of my rant you quoted is criticizing the presentation. it's just that in my opinion, presentation is part of the story, and an important part at that. a story with a good plot but poor presentation is a poor story no matter how good the plot  is and similarly a mediocer or poor plot with good presentation can still be a good story.

[William Adama]

UNC missions were more involved with the story.



N7 missions were pointless loot missions used to "upgrade" the player.



Dumb, preschool children use the "ME2 had prettier levels and terrain" argument. 99% of the rocky planetoids in our universe are uninteresting mounds of dirt with exotic atmospheres that give off different light in the EM spectrum because of their chemical makeup.



ME2 had every other side quest planet in BREATHABLE atmospheres that had monkeys on them. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Some of us fans are educated people that don't buy into these stupid hollywood-esque settings.



Don't forget the linearity of these sidequests... at least ME1 gave us the ability to explore in the rover for collectibles that gave us *gasp* experience points. Back then, experience points were needed to unlock another branch of skills to help make our characters more personalized.



ME2 gave us palladium...

[Quething]

Ignoring the ad hominem, I did wonder a great deal about the pyjaks. Half the annoyance of Eletania was that it was a hazard world, and the reason it was a hazard world was because the entire ecosystem was dependent on these incredibly dangerous microbes that put anything non-native into anaphylactic shock. Humans and krogan included, presumably, since both you and Wrex have to wear helmets.

But they're wandering around Tuchanka and Zorya in ME2, brazen as you please, and none of the krogan or Blue Suns or factory workers are dying of allergies. So either the pyjacks, in two years, evolved to no longer require this microbe, or every other species, in two years, evolved to ignore it.

.... did they think we all missed or forgot the Eletania planet description because it was merely text?

Modifié par Quething, 01 novembre 2010 - 04:23 .

[-Skorpious-]

ME3 sidequests should be -



A) Meaningful dialogue with an NPC. This (obviously) unlocks the quest.

Actual quest content. Preferably with a decent combination of both gameplay and story development with living NPC's (note that I said gameplay and not combat; not all missions should require that Shepard shoots something).

C) Review said quest with current companions



As many have pointed out already, my main gripes with the N7 missions are the lack of dialogue, NPC's, and the fact that you never feel like you are actually exploring foreign planets in space (I miss ME's beautiful vistas)

[sinosleep]

N7, not remotely close IMO. No amount of dialogue is going to make the same 2 bunkers sprinkled with slightly different enemies more enjoyable than substantially differently levels.

[Kronner]

I thought both were weak.

N7 - except for the anti-Blue Suns series (4 missions) , I did not particularly like any N7s.

ME1 side-missions had better stories IMHO, but the gameplay sucked.

I hope ME3 improves in this area.

Modifié par Kronner, 01 novembre 2010 - 07:28 .

[Nightwriter]

William Adama wrote...

UNC missions were more involved with the story.

N7 missions were pointless loot missions used to "upgrade" the player.

Dumb, preschool children use the "ME2 had prettier levels and terrain" argument. 99% of the rocky planetoids in our universe are uninteresting mounds of dirt with exotic atmospheres that give off different light in the EM spectrum because of their chemical makeup.

ME2 had every other side quest planet in BREATHABLE atmospheres that had monkeys on them. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Some of us fans are educated people that don't buy into these stupid hollywood-esque settings.

Don't forget the linearity of these sidequests... at least ME1 gave us the ability to explore in the rover for collectibles that gave us *gasp* experience points. Back then, experience points were needed to unlock another branch of skills to help make our characters more personalized.

ME2 gave us palladium...

I had no problem with the N7 planet environments being prettier. I just wanted something to happen in them.

The worlds were gorgeous, but meaningless - the human mind doesn't remember places so much as it remembers events. A place becomes meaningful for the event that occurs there. In ME1 we could remember the names of a few planets because of their UNC missions.

We'd reference the Nodacrux mission, the Prothean ruin on Eletania, etc. And these were "bland" planets.

Fastforward to ME2. What are the planets we remember there? Pragia, Aiea, Bekenstein. Why? Because memorable things happened there. There were few memorable things that happened in the N7 missions. I can remember the bland ME1 planets more clearly and sharply than I could remember any gorgeous N7 world in ME2 - because of story.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 01 novembre 2010 - 07:50 .

[SithLordExarKun]

William Adama wrote...



Dumb, preschool children use the "ME2 had prettier levels and terrain" argument. 99% of the rocky planetoids in our universe are uninteresting mounds of dirt with exotic atmospheres that give off different light in the EM spectrum because of their chemical makeup.

And dumb retards like yourself use the "ME1 UNC is not linear and explorable" 99.99% of the time when the fact is there is nothing to explore on a barren planet with the same textures and different skyboxes.

Not to mention that it is so "linear" to storm into the same bunker time and again with the same exact layout.

"Less linear and more explorable" my ass.

[-Skorpious-]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

William Adama wrote...



Dumb, preschool children use the "ME2 had prettier levels and terrain" argument. 99% of the rocky planetoids in our universe are uninteresting mounds of dirt with exotic atmospheres that give off different light in the EM spectrum because of their chemical makeup.

And dumb retards like yourself use the "ME1 UNC is not linear and explorable" 99.99% of the time when the fact is there is nothing to explore on a barren planet with the same textures and different skyboxes.

Not to mention that it is so "linear" to storm into the same bunker time and again with the same exact layout.

"Less linear and more explorable" my ass.

True, but how you get to the bunker, how you decide to engage with NPC's, and the ability to choose from diferent outcomes makes the UNC missions less linear than the N7 ones. While I do appreciate Bioware's desire to make the N7 missions more unique, it is a lie to say that they are less linear than the UNC sidequests.

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 01 novembre 2010 - 11:54 .

[SithLordExarKun]

-Skorpious- wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

William Adama wrote...



Dumb, preschool children use the "ME2 had prettier levels and terrain" argument. 99% of the rocky planetoids in our universe are uninteresting mounds of dirt with exotic atmospheres that give off different light in the EM spectrum because of their chemical makeup.

And dumb retards like yourself use the "ME1 UNC is not linear and explorable" 99.99% of the time when the fact is there is nothing to explore on a barren planet with the same textures and different skyboxes.

Not to mention that it is so "linear" to storm into the same bunker time and again with the same exact layout.

"Less linear and more explorable" my ass.

True, but how you get to the bunker, how you decide to engage with NPC's, and the ability to choose from diferent outcomes makes the UNC missions less linear than the N7 ones. While I do appreciate Bioware's desire to make the N7 missions more unique, it is a lie to say that they are less linear than the UNC sidequests.

Thats the only thing i'd give the UNC missions over the N7 missions. But as for "how you get to the bunkers" still remain pretty linear. Oh that and the integration of UNC missions are better though. N7 missions, while set onmore varried planets lack any dialogue which makes it feel less immersive.

Both of the have flaws and i think adding the strengths of both the UNC and N7's would make it better i think.

[TMA LIVE]

Nightwriter wrote...
I can remember the bland ME1 planets more clearly and sharply than I could remember any gorgeous N7 world in ME2 - because of story. 

I think that's because you were visiting the same planet over and over and over again, with just a different color.

Same with the stories. FIGHT BIOTIC EXTREMISTS! They got hostages! STOP EVIL SCIENTISTS! They're doing bad things. STOP EVIL ROBOTS. THEY'RE GOING TO DESTROY US!

Honestly Night, besides having a dude to talk to you at the end, they were all just as dull and forgettable. If they didn't have a dude at the end, story-wise, they'd be the same quality as ME2. That never really changed. But I prefer the ME2 one's because they were prettier, shorter, and fun. While the ME1 assignments I usually skip, unless I plan to import. I hate the Mako that much. I hate going into the same building that much. I hate rocky planets ingeneral after ME1.

Modifié par TMA LIVE, 02 novembre 2010 - 01:39 .

[William Adama]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

William Adama wrote...



Dumb, preschool children use the "ME2 had prettier levels and terrain" argument. 99% of the rocky planetoids in our universe are uninteresting mounds of dirt with exotic atmospheres that give off different light in the EM spectrum because of their chemical makeup.

And dumb retards like yourself use the "ME1 UNC is not linear and explorable" 99.99% of the time when the fact is there is nothing to explore on a barren planet with the same textures and different skyboxes.

Not to mention that it is so "linear" to storm into the same bunker time and again with the same exact layout.

"Less linear and more explorable" my ass.

Whoaaaa! Struck a nerve did I?

I never said the UNC missions weren't linear, just not as linear as ME2's. Seriously, I could actually go left or right in the side quest planets as opposed to being stuffed into a corridor with enemies spawing in front of me.

I remember when Chris Priestly used to market the game as, " In Mass effect, the whole galaxy is explorable". At least the choice to explore was in ME1, where the hell did that choice go in the 2nd game? I thought these games were supposed to be about choices? I don't think anything I did in ME2 was really a choice of importance. I could actually KILL one of my squadmembers in ME1, or even avoid taking them on my team at all.

So when they removed looting, what the hell was the point in doing ANY of the sidequests in ME2? Ask me if I even attempted to complete all the sidequests during my 2 playthroughs! The answer is NO and still is NO even after 8 months its been out.

I maxed out my prototypical Infiltrator before the suicide mission doing all those stupid loyalty missions (which were main quest missions as far as I'm concerned).

So if I'm a retard for wanting and expecting a game like ME1 from its sequel, then I am a big retard. I didn't buy ME2 because I wanted to play a ****ty Gears of war.

Small tidbit:

Times completed ME1: 8 times (and still haven't gotten all achievments)

Times completed ME2: 1.5 times  (have every achievment)

Which game is more shallow?

[SSV Enterprise]

William Adama wrote...

So when they removed looting, what the hell was the point in doing ANY of the sidequests in ME2?.

Upgrades, credits, and experience.