150 réponses à ce sujet

[Destroy Raiden_]

With 2's N7 missions I can barely pick a memorable one out until you say the dust storm planet then I go, " Oh yeah that planet..." primarily because I got there and it ended up being a shooting gallery like every loyalty mission save Samara and Thane's.



The constant duck, cover and shoot sticks with me from 2 as a repetitive I could sleep kill sort of thing rather then 1's were I was interacting and knowing I was on an N7 mission. I think OP has it when they say lack of a voice saying hey here's a special N7 mission I'd like you to check out.



Even running Bhatia's errand was one I remember because I got to talk to her husband and he asked if I could help I always say yes and go do it some would call me a distracted player but I love to explore and talk to people right now in fall out 3 I'm completely and deliberately ignoring doing all major story plots so I can just run around the waste land uncovering hidden locations and raiding thats it! I stumble on the main plot events I don't actively try to find them. The drop in drop out of main story I like the best I can control how long my game time is or how short sense now adays all games stop doing final fantasy 100+ hours of main story plot in favor of get it done in 60.



As far as mindless shooting in 1 off the top of my head we had Cerberus bases who can't seem to keep hold of their experiments, The 5 geth out post I would've been find at stopping with 3 I cringe to have to force myself to do this long shooting gallery for Tali everytime, Getting to Liara every geth in that solar system shows up and no one notices? thats about it I know we had pirates on some worlds but they where fun to just bust in the door and start shooting for no other reason then they where smugglers.

[-Skorpious-]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

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.

Except that (as already stated above) you can reach 30 without doing them. ME3 should include specific items for completing an N7 mission instead of credits. For example, for taking an outpost of hostile Geth, Shepard could be rewarded by choosing between a Geth Omni-tool or a new piece or armor. Stopping the Blood Pack from raiding an Alliance supply depot could net Shepard a new weapon of his/her choosing.

My point is, there should be an incentive to pursue and complete sidequests (besides a small XP gain).

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 02 novembre 2010 - 05:25 .

[SithLordExarKun]

William Adama wrote...



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.

Yes, go left to right in the same identical bunker on the same world with a new skybox.

William Adama wrote...
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.

You mean they didn't gave you the choice to not  land on the boring N7 mission planets? Like i said i DO give the UNC missions even more credit than the N7 missions, read my previous post as i am not going to bother typing them out again.

William Adama wrote...
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.

No, you're a retard for blatant elitist comments.

William Adama wrote...
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?

Replaying Game X more than Y is not an indicator of deeper game.

[CroGamer002]

Let's see:

ME1, driving with Mako on unrealistic terrible terrain with bad controls until you get to the base or cave that all look a like.

ME2, you don't have bullsh*t Mako and you just get to the place and every one of them is different.



N7 missions having mindless combat:

N7: Endangered Research Station

N7: Mining the Canyon( unless you count two Varren as mindless combat)

N7: MSV Estevanico

N7: Abandoned Research Station







Also for mindless combat for other missions I can just say you are douche.



Combat is very creative and most of them are different from each other.

[GodWood]

Honestly they both sucked.

[Dean_the_Young]

I think the single best part of ME1's missions was the pre/post mission leadup of discovering the mission and, after, hearing the consequences. More specifically, how you could discover the missions in ways other than Hackett and every other person calling you every other time you got ready to change systems.

The best way to find the missions was when you discovered them by other means during your quest: discovering about the Biotic cultists from a data pad you could get on the Citadel, for example, or when you walked into the Consort's chambers while exploring the Citadel. Elevator news reports were also a good time as well, with the semi-random nature of receiving a mission (and then, afterwards, hearing about it from the same news station). While some missions were fitting that I be called, I generally preferred to be able to (easily) come across/hear about them during my times in the hub areas. Besides the 'foreign world Mako joyjoy' aspect, these were the best/most immersive parts of ME1 side quests.

It's not like this was entirely absent in ME2: you get the N7 about the geth-hijacked ship from a news report, for example. And Aria gives you the resource cache mission on the basis of completing favors for her. But for most of them, I never hear about them: I have to look the planets up online so I can save a crapload of time (and credits) exploring.


Edit: To expand a little more, I believe the point I'm trying to get across is that as much as level design and content matters, as much as relevance to the plot/story matters, how you get the mission is just as integral a part of it's tie-in to the story. Some of the best missions from ME1 were found from the main missions: you investigated Noveria to go after Saren, found mentions of Rachni shipped offworld, and then by following those leads you could find the outpost being overrun by Rachni, which I consider one of the best side quests in the game.

Or, alternatively, if you were galaxy-searching afterwards, you could come across it by chance, and same difference.


Most, if not all, missions should be discoverable by something other than galaxy-scouring. A designated quest-giver like Hacket, a place you can be reached by others wishing something of you (other than the Normandy galaxy map, please), mentions in the news/elevators, etc. These give great immersion of being related to the game, and similar news reports afterwards can give some relevance to the accomplishment of them.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 02 novembre 2010 - 10:12 .

[Nightwriter]

Got to agree with Dean here. How missions are received significantly affects your whole perception of them.

I like receiving missions in diverse ways.

[Dean_the_Young]

Jeez, Nightwriter, you don't have to sound so... grudging about it.

People might start to get the impression we disagree about things alot or something.

[/banter]

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 02 novembre 2010 - 10:41 .

[Nightwriter]

That was grudging? I must work on this internet inflection thing.

Whatever do you mean "we disagree about a lot of things", I'm sure I've no idea what you're talking about...

Oh and so Pacifien doesn't replace all this with green letters - did anyone feel that ME1's more interactive missions also gave them a sense of purpose that some of ME2's may have lacked? For instance your objectives seemed clearer, you were always aware of what you were doing and why.

[Ieldra]

Nightwriter wrote...
did anyone feel that ME1's more interactive missions also gave them a sense of purpose that some of ME2's may have lacked? For instance your objectives seemed clearer, you were always aware of what you were doing and why.

Definitely.

There are two reasons for this:
(1) Information you get in a dialogue sticks in your mind, while information from a datapad is instantly forgotten unless you follow it up immediately.
(2) In N7 assignments, you get most of the information only after probing an anomaly. That's too little, too late. There's no sense of purpose, you've just stumbled on something, explored it, fought a bit, and that was that. There are two assignment chains in the game, which I liked, but see (1): there's no interaction, you forget that the follow-up assignment was, in fact, a follow-up assignment. It feels like just another stumbled-upon one.


BTW, I just read a post abovethread where someone said Mako fights were boring. Are there actually people who fight in the Mako? It's much easier on foot, even against thresher maws.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 02 novembre 2010 - 11:24 .

[Nightwriter]

Yep. I think you nailed it, Ieldra. Don't really think I could have explained it any better, even to myself.

And yes, I did fight in the mako often. Too often, in fact, I did it so much I could no longer tell you whether it was boring or fun.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

And yes, I did fight in the mako often. Too often, in fact, I did it so much I could no longer tell you whether it was boring or fun.

meh, i jumped out for the extra xp. every time. plus it made it more fun: there's nothing like sniping some unsuspecting fool from half a mile away, ('course some were immune to one-shot kills and all his/her mates would magically know exactly where you were after the first shot, but still..).

i think people are forgetting, once again, that the "N7" missions aren't analogous to the UNCs - they are designed to be 'min-extras' on purpose as a reward for exploring, whereas the UNCs served as a back-up to the main story in the first game. ME2 has many more main missions with proper dialogue, cinematics, combat etc that just wasn't present in the first game. could the N7s be better/have more content/depth/etc? yeah, of course, but id rather have ME2's system with more main content than less, with more side-content a la me1 (even considering they would be unlikely to copy/paste the same 3 bases again and again).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 02 novembre 2010 - 12:02 .

[Nightwriter]

... Not sure I agree, Jebel, the N7 missions felt very much like they were supposed to be the UNCs of ME2.

At least, it seems like a significant amount of people got this impression, or else you wouldn't be getting threads like this where so many people compare the two.

[Christmas Ape]

But if that were true, then it would open the door to all kinds of disturbing ideas. I mean, if the N7 assignments aren't a direct one-to-one equivalent of the UNC missions, it becomes possible to argue that Mass Effect 2 was in fact designed to be different as a conscious choice as opposed to lazily bodged together as a slap in the face to Bioware's fans in some kind of suicide pact with EA.



Clearly, this idea is too dangerous to survive here.

[Jebel Krong]

Nightwriter wrote...

... Not sure I agree, Jebel, the N7 missions felt very much like they were supposed to be the UNCs of ME2.

At least, it seems like a significant amount of people got this impression, or else you wouldn't be getting threads like this where so many people compare the two.

well in a way they are - but at the same time they were intentionally designed to be smaller, but with more variation - it's one of the things everyone asked for after me1, after all.

if i can understand that with limited time/resources there's a limit to how much content that you can actually include (and i think they did ok with roughly double the amount of main missions and all the resultant work that went in there); everyone else should be able to as well. it's a sign of the greedy times we live in where everyone wants their cake and then to eat it, too.

or would people have been happier with the same 3 bases on a few dozen N7 missions? hmmm? - i don't think so.

edit: @ christmas ape: i lol'ed (because it's true).

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 02 novembre 2010 - 12:29 .

[Terror_K]

Nightwriter wrote...

... Not sure I agree, Jebel, the N7 missions felt very much like they were supposed to be the UNCs of ME2.

At least, it seems like a significant amount of people got this impression, or else you wouldn't be getting threads like this where so many people compare the two.

Considering they said in early interviews that the whole idea of the UNC missions was the idea of roaming around on this vast, unexplored world in the void of space to make you really feel like you were exploring the unknown, I somehow doubt it, since the N7 missions don't really accomplish any of that. To me they're clearly a case of compensating for the complaints aimed at ME1's faults with the UNC missions, being a mixture of overcompensation and missing much of the point too. In early ME2 interviews they said that their mission with ME2's sidequest worlds was to make each one unique and special more than anything else after people complained about the UNC worlds being too generic. I think people then were actually expecting something closer to what we ended up getting in Overlord: something the size of a UNC world, but more individually and carefully crafted as opposed to dead.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

I think people then were actually expecting something closer to what we ended up getting in Overlord: something the size of a UNC world, but more individually and carefully crafted as opposed to dead.

and there's the rub exactly: do any of you know how long it takes to create something like that with UE3? even with familiarity it's not a 'couple hour process' - do you really think the UNCs in me1 were like what they were on purpose?

[fongiel24]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

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.

I've got to agree with this. The UNC missions were better integrated but the execution was bullsh*t. That they used the exact same buildings every single time and just threw together some random crates inside made the UNC missions feel tacked on. Other than the main storyline missions, ME1 is not a very pretty game and the UNC missions are the worst example of this. The N7 missions were more varied and I felt like somebody had actually taken the time to make each of them unique, rather than slapping together yet another level featuring a few boxy buildings on a generic rocky landscape and dumping some idiotic enemies in them. The UNC missions are far too repetitive.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I think people then were actually expecting something closer to what we ended up getting in Overlord: something the size of a UNC world, but more individually and carefully crafted as opposed to dead.

and there's the rub exactly: do any of you know how long it takes to create something like that with UE3? even with familiarity it's not a 'couple hour process' - do you really think the UNCs in me1 were like what they were on purpose?

I dunno. UT fans seem to be able to pop out a fully functional map of similar scale and more involvement (item placement, spawn points, bot pathing, etc.) fairly quickly. But that's just an observation; I'm not going to claim that it's super easy.

I do think the UNC's were mostly how they intended them to be actually. N7's seemed to completely toss away the whole "exploration of the unknown" factor. The fact is, UNC worlds are actually like what most non-gas based planets out there would be like, so the idea of exploring a mostly dead world is both realistic and covers the basic idea of you exploring a mostly uninhabited, dead and vast world. I actually liked them because of this and found them immersive, while N7 missions felt more manufactured, small and artificial, despite being more unique. To me they made the universe small, which is why I'd welcome a mix of both for ME3 since that would solve both problems.

A lot of people say they're all the same, but I thought BioWare at least did a good job to make them look and feel at least a little unique. I imagine a lesser developer would actually have been happy to literally use the same texture and skybox for each one, but BioWare at least made sure they each had something different about them, giving us dirt planets, rock planets, volcanic planets, grass planets, ice planets, salt-flat planets, sand planets, marsh planets, etc. along with different heat hazards and things like lightning, different moons and planets in the sky, burning-up asteroids and debris, snow, sandstorms, etc. With regards to the bases they actually explained that most of these places were set up by humans, since we were in The Traverse for the most part, and that they'd have standard building construction kits for expeditions and such, explaining why the bases were often alike. Nonetheless, they changed it for ME2.

Again, I feel as if they overcompensated though, like with much of ME2. It seems like rather than analysing everything with regards to the ME1 original equivalent and looking at both the good points of them and the bad, they focussed only on the complaints, then stripped everything away and dealt with the complants with the replacement ME2 version, but in the whole process ignored the positive factors and failed to restore them entirely. This is also present through things like the Inventory, elevators, The Mako, etc. as well. It's a common theme throughout ME2. Few things in ME1 completely and thoroughly sucked, but yet many were treated as if they were, with all attention on the problems these factors raised and none on the positive parts, which I think is why I feel ME2 misses the point so much: it solves many problems, yet fails to restore many of the good elements back again.

[Nightwriter]

Christmas Ape wrote...

But if that were true, then it would open the door to all kinds of disturbing ideas. I mean, if the N7 assignments aren't a direct one-to-one equivalent of the UNC missions, it becomes possible to argue that Mass Effect 2 was in fact designed to be different as a conscious choice as opposed to lazily bodged together as a slap in the face to Bioware's fans in some kind of suicide pact with EA.

Clearly, this idea is too dangerous to survive here.

... I really don't understand this.

ME2 was designed to be different as a conscious choice, and the fact that there are planet sidequests in both games doesn't somehow contradict this. Something can be different and still have common elements. We can compare how much we liked those common elements without saying ME2 is a "lazily bodged together slap in the face to BioWare's fans in a suicide pact with EA".

And seriously, who says that and why do I keep hearing ME2 critic-haters referencing it? 

And why, in general, do I hear critic-haters acting like something one critic said is something we all say?

[Pacifien]

Nightwriter wrote...
And why, in general, do I hear critic-haters acting like something one critic said is something we all say?

That does go both ways.

[Aurica]

Pepper4 wrote...

UNC quests (Some with vehnicle, some without) with the environment design of N7 quest = best side quests ever.

I would like to see that too.. and oh.. I prefer the MAKO to the Hammerhead.  I  guess it is because it reminds me so much of the Halycon APC in Aliens movie.  

[Nightwriter]

Pacifien wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...
And why, in general, do I hear critic-haters acting like something one critic said is something we all say?

That does go both ways.

Not for me it doesn't. I'm interested in making a conscious effort not to generalize them.

It's like if I said all ME2 supporters claim ME2 was absolutely perfect. I've never heard an ME2 supporter say this. Almost every one I've talked to acknowledges some of the game's faults. Likewise, I don't want anyone to get the impression critics say the game was an abominable travesty. Can't we avoid unreasonable extremes?  

[Sparda Stonerule]

I think I finally figured out why I liked the side missions in ME 2 better. Mass Effect took time to spoon feed you everything. Like the text blurb at the end of one mission about Cerberus needing to answer for what it did here. As if we couldn't tell Cerberus was bad. Mass Effect 1 side mission spoon fed you everything through dialog. Mass Effect gave you hints about what was going on and made you read to connect the dots. So I prefer reading about a situation rather than having some arbitrary morality talk at the end deliberately telling me what is right and wrong.



That being said, in ME 3 I'd like a mix of them. Some side mission taking their time and explaining exactly what happened, and some side quests that have some mystery and intrigue to them where the player has to puzzle it out for themselves. Because there is no adequate reason for only having datapads, or only having people explain everything to you.

[Nightwriter]

Well... you call that spoon feeding, I call it human interaction.

I like human interaction. I confess I find most things that don't involve human interaction a bit boring.