155 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

ZLurps wrote...

Note that in ME1 you didn't need to do any exploration. So why in the world you did it?

Who says I did?

But saying that I don't have to do exploration doesn't make me want to pay for it. If Bio makes exploration DLCs I'd be perfectly happy to not buy them

AlanC9 wrote...
I'll bet that in the ME setting you'd have entertainment with an Indiana
Jones-equivalent running around busting into Prothean ruins rather than
Eqyptian tombs.

Obivously you read the thread...

Nope; I only came in a page ago. I just followed In Exile's lead to this really dopey concept.

[AlanC9]

elitecom wrote...
Oh yes you bet I use XP, that's what you could gain a lot of, and is that the problem here? The fact that you gained a lot of XP from this? Well exploration is optional, if you don't like to just do the mission worlds and start a new game with the same character and do it all over again. You know that's what I just love about Mass Effect, you've so much freedom to play the game how you want to play it.

Wow, you're confused. XP isn't an argument in favor of anything, dude. XP awards are completely arbitrary, so Bio can make your character reach any level they want you to whether there's exploration or not.

As for freedom.... what you like here is what I see as the problem with the design, and many other RPGs. I want more constraint for Shepard, not more freedom. Role-playing, for me, is about being in the character's situation, and Shepard's just not in a place that allows him to leisurely drift around the galaxy.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 juin 2011 - 08:09 .

[Massadonious1]

I better get a damn medal on Palaven for recovering all those insignias.

Some kind of recognition for those stupid fetch quests will be the only way "exploring" for those will ever have any redeeming qualities.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 29 juin 2011 - 08:05 .

[elitecom]

AlanC9 wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Note that in ME1 you didn't need to do any exploration. So why in the world you did it?

Who says I did?

But saying that I don't have to do exploration doesn't make me want to pay for it. If Bio makes exploration DLCs I'd be perfectly happy to not buy them

Oh common, you can't star argumenting like that. It would be same as if I for example said:Oh I rarely play as an engineer and don't like it, I think that Bioware should just drop it and allocate the resources spent on that to something else in the game. Or better yet, I didn't like character X in the previous two Mass Effect games, and I don't want to pay for that, I think Bioware should just drop character X and focus more on the other ones.

You see argumenting like that just doesn't work. There are people here that wants exploration, and truefully enough I don't often play as an engineer, but that doesn't mean that I want the class removed. I know there are others that probably love to play as an engineer. I need to take them into account.

AlanC9 wrote...
Wow, you're confused. XP isn't an argument in favor of anything, dude. XP awards are completely arbitrary, so Bio can make your character reach any level they want you to whether there's exploration or not.

I think you're a bit confused about what I tried to prove. If I do all of the exploration, I can gain the level 58 in one playthrough, now if you skipped the exploration you wouldn't reach such a high level. That's the incentive for many players and why many players chose to do the exploration even though they didn't like it, why? Because they wanted to reach the highest level possible.

Modifié par elitecom, 29 juin 2011 - 08:14 .

[AlanC9]

elitecom wrote...
Oh common, you can't star argumenting like that. It would be same as if I for example said:Oh I rarely play as an engineer and don't like it, I think that Bioware should just drop it and allocate the resources spent on that to something else in the game. Or better yet, I didn't like character X in the previous two Mass Effect games, and I don't want to pay for that, I think Bioware should just drop character X and focus more on the other ones.

You see argumenting like that just doesn't work. There are people here that wants exploration, and truefully enough I don't often play as an engineer, but that doesn't mean that I want the class removed. I know there are others that probably love to play as an engineer. I need to take them into account.

No, you don't. Neither do I. We don't work for Bioware. It's their job to decide who to accomodate, who to compromise with, and who to screw over. Not ours.

[elitecom]

AlanC9 wrote...
No, you don't. Neither do I. We don't work for Bioware. It's their job to decide who to accomodate, who to compromise with, and who to screw over. Not ours.

I believe it was you who said that you wouldn't pay for the exploration, and wished it dropped. Don't try to veer away from your point. I don't work for Bioware, but Bioware won't make Mass Effect 3 tailored to the individual. The engineering class will probably be there, whether I use it or not. Therefore I must accept that, even though I never use it.

[Massadonious1]

I think ME2 proves they would prefer to remove "exploration" than an entire class option.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 29 juin 2011 - 08:21 .

[AlanC9]

elitecom wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
No, you don't. Neither do I. We don't work for Bioware. It's their job to decide who to accomodate, who to compromise with, and who to screw over. Not ours.

I believe it was you who said that you wouldn't pay for the exploration, and wished it dropped. Don't try to veer away from your point. I don't work for Bioware, but Bioware won't make Mass Effect 3 tailored to the individual. The engineering class will probably be there, whether I use it or not. Therefore I must accept that, even though I never use it.

Umm... what are you talking about? I haven't veered away from anything

I'd prefer not to pay for exploration. I don't care what goes into DLC. More specifically, I care only a little, since a DLC I don't like might replace a DLC I do like, but since I buy very little DLC this isn't a big concern. Your hypothetical engineer-hater could want the engineer class stripped out to DLC too. I wouldn't agree with that, but it's not somehow an illegitimate desire.

Sure, Bioware won't make a game tailored for the individual. That's the point of these threads; there's only going to be one ME3, and I'd rather it be designed the way I'd like it rather than the way you'd like it. Talking about DLC just means that I'm not interested in what other people do with their own game and on their own time

And  no, I don't expect to get my way on this, not all the way. But I was pleasantly surprised by how ME2 made a lot of positive changes to the RPG model, such as no kill-XP and no inventory management, so I don't see any reason to give up hope for Bio to make further improvements.

[AlanC9]

elitecom wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Wow, you're confused. XP isn't an argument in favor of anything, dude. XP awards are completely arbitrary, so Bio can make your character reach any level they want you to whether there's exploration or not.

I think you're a bit confused about what I tried to prove. If I do all of the exploration, I can gain the level 58 in one playthrough, now if you skipped the exploration you wouldn't reach such a high level. That's the incentive for many players and why many players chose to do the exploration even though they didn't like it, why? Because they wanted to reach the highest level possible.

Right. You get to the highest possible level if you do exploration. But if there's no exploration, the highest level possible is whatever you get to without doing exploration, obviously. How is this an argument in favor of exploration?

[elitecom]

AlanC9 wrote...
Umm... what are you talking about? I haven't veered away from anything

I'd prefer not to pay for exploration. I don't care what goes into DLC. More specifically, I care only a little, since a DLC I don't like might replace a DLC I do like, but since I buy very little DLC this isn't a big concern. Your hypothetical engineer-hater could want the engineer class stripped out to DLC too. I wouldn't agree with that, but it's not somehow an illegitimate desire.

Sure, Bioware won't make a game tailored for the individual. That's the point of these threads; there's only going to be one ME3, and I'd rather it be designed the way I'd like it rather than the way you'd like it. Talking about DLC just means that I'm not interested in what other people do with their own game and on their own time

And  no, I don't expect to get my way on this, not all the way. But I was pleasantly surprised by how ME2 made a lot of positive changes to the RPG model, such as no kill-XP and no inventory management, so I don't see any reason to give up hope for Bio to make further improvements.

DLC? No exploration should definitely not be some kind of DLC, it's part of the ME experience.

I'm talking about what you're avocating for. Removing exploration to some kind of DLC would really undermine it. I know Bioware almost did that with Overlord to adress those wishes, but that's why I made this thread, to try to put some solid exploration back in the game.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the wish to remove something, to further what you like isn't quite ethical. You wrote it yourself that you wouldn't agree with putting the Engineering class as some kind of DLC, but it isn't an illigitimate desire? That may be, but it is unethical. The same with exploration, it's part of the ME experience, it was there in the first game, and I must say it was quite revolutionary, since not many sci-fi RPGs let you do the same thing. 
Of course what one must take into account is that if Bioware receives a lot of fan feedback regarding certain elements in the game, they might remove it or keep it. Again which is the exact purpose of this thread.
Of course we all have different values, me for one, I could never lobby for the removal of the engineering class just because I never used it, I know others do use it, and they enjoy it. Changes I could agree on, but the removal of the class, just as the removal of exploration and to limit it to DLC, no it's not right. However I believe that's for another discussion as well, this has become a derailing of the thread.  
I wish I could go further in to all this DLC business but this thread isn't about that, so I won't persue it further.

Another thing, Bioware have said that for newcomers ME3 would deliver on the definite Mass Effect experience, exploration is part of that, so therefore I can only assume that it'll be in the game. Again that's why I made this thread, to discuss what kind of exploration we would want to have in ME3.

Now I believe you've made your contribution, and I appreciate that. After all we're here to discuss the exploration. I realize now that you and me, we don't agree on a lot of things. I certainly don't hope that Bioware keep making these "improvements" you're speaking of.

AlanC9 wrote...
Right. You get to the highest possible level if you do exploration. But if there's no exploration, the highest level possible is whatever you get to without doing exploration, obviously. How is this an argument in favor of exploration?

It's not necessarily an argument for exploration, it's just a proof for the those who choses to do the exploration even though they don't want to. It's the experience points they want. I realize now that you and me, we don't agree on a lot of things. 

[LordNige]

 I think any side missions will be small missions that can help you fight the Reapers.

[Leoism]

Why is exploration even an' issue? if you want to do main story line, then do so but im guessing there are hundreds of thousands of players that loved the ability to explore new planets and find new wildlife not seen before etc. Plus with all the EXP gained via heading to these new worlds it was beneficial to everyone if they wished to go there. I'd actually love to see a proper official poll on this and we could see the amount of people that prefer to explore than to ignore it.

[elitecom]

Leoism wrote...

Why is exploration even an' issue? if you want to do main story line, then do so but im guessing there are hundreds of thousands of players that loved the ability to explore new planets and find new wildlife not seen before etc. Plus with all the EXP gained via heading to these new worlds it was beneficial to everyone if they wished to go there. I'd actually love to see a proper official poll on this and we could see the amount of people that prefer to explore than to ignore it.

DefinitelyI agree, exploration is an optional feature which isn't mandatory. It's probably due to(as I've tried to explain) the fact that some players do it anyways because they want as much XP as possible, ZLurps said it best when he wrote that 53 looks better than 50.
                      However this can easily be fixed by having the NG+ feature. Then those who don't like to explore can just replay the main quest a couple of times without exploring, just as you could do in ME1 and ME2. That's what I like about the Mass Effect games, you've so much freedom to play the game the way you want to.
Besides that, most of the arguments against exploration have been debunked. So yeah I really don't see the issue.

[Clearly Balkan]

EliteCom you have excellent ideas, but there is a little problem.

For all ideas you have mentioned especially regarding:

• ability to open new Mass Relays and to travel to new places where no Citadel species has gone before;
• Exploration in different forms, all from uncharted alien worlds to ghost ships to space stations;
• The ability of visit ruins of races which were made extinct by the Reapers in earlier cycles to learn about them, their history, culture, artefacts, and perhaps to learn some details on how to defeat the Reapers, or just more information about them

Game should come on 4 discs. Not that I'd complain. :-)

Modifié par Clearly Balkan, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:14 .

[Leoism]

I would still buy and play ME even if it had 10 discs, i love everything about the game Of course there could be changes to improve it but hey, show me a game which isn't at least a little bit flawed and i'll call you a damn liar!

[Majin Paul]

Opening new Mass Relays is cool, but wouldn't it be dangerous story wise? You could be opening new doors for the Reapers if you open the wrong one.

[Leoism]

They are already attacking in ME3 so it wouldn't truly matter that much as if you fail its game over :|

[Nightdragon8]

i wouldn't mind exploration, I personlly liked the Mako "barren world" stuff. it was all optional. but funny enough it did get a few mentions in ME2

As for all you nay sayers how would it hurt you to have it? you talking about them spending money in creating it.. i don't see how it would be that much, and if bioware is penny pinching that much... they should stop working on there money pit of a game SWTOR MMO to publish a polished end to a trilogy.

You guys talk about exploring but how was it any different that scanning a planet with the mouse or the joystick? IMO the mako was MUCH more fun in that reguard. it was always fun to off-road

[Leoism]

The mako was hilarious flying off the tallest cliffs and see how far you can go before landing, without causing any damage of course ! Plus the epic Insanity battles with the MAW!

Modifié par Leoism, 02 juillet 2011 - 11:57 .

[elitecom]

Exaclty, that's why I hope that the Mako returns.

I don't think opening new relays would be all that dangerous. It's been hinted at by the Rachni Queen that the Rachni were indoctrinated, which would explain why they were so hostile. Also any new organic species which would help in the fight against the Reapers would be very welcome.

[Lumikki]

Exploration should be done because there is something interesting to see. Not because you want advance you character. Replaing same content with same character has no real purpose, it's powerplaying. Exporation because extra exp is also powerplaying.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 juillet 2011 - 11:27 .

[elitecom]

Lumikki wrote...

Exploration should be done because there is something interesting to see. Not because you want advance you character. Replaing same content with same character has no real purpose, it's powerplaying. Exporation because extra exp is also powerplaying.

Exploration seems to have many incentives, extra Xp is one of them(compared to the amount of xp you would get if you skipped exploration entirely), but there's also more such as lore, and uncover stellar and inter stellar mysteries in various forms. Both in ME1 and ME2 it had its rewards. In ME3 it could be the same rewards or perhaps new awards, such as the help from a new species you discovered when you opened the unopened relay X.

By the way I've also updated the first post, to make it more presentable in a way.

[ZLurps]

Lumikki wrote...

Exploration should be done because there is something interesting to see. Not because you want advance you character. Replaing same content with same character has no real purpose, it's powerplaying. Exporation because extra exp is also powerplaying.

If you read what I have wrote in this topic I have some ideas how to make exploriation really optional. Rewards could be lore items, and by lore items I mean things like Asari Writings from ME1.
Say those lore items in ME3 would be Turian relics, and you get small amount of experience when you find one. When you have collected them all, you get also codex entry that describes something new about Turian society.

Those who don't like exploration and about background lore, or like to skip exploration missions would lose like... say 100 xp x 4 relics = 400 xp, plus additional 250 xp for completing the quest and receiving codex entry, total = 650 xp. IMO, that's hardly game breaking for anyone who doesn't like exploration and wouldn't encourage grinding.



I have been thinking exploration and ME2 Hammerhead missions in Firewalker DLC. I really liked landscapes in Lattesh (Ice planet) and Corang (Prothean ruins) and if you completed all the missions you got Prothean relic in Shepard's cabin in Normandy. That kind of things, that didn't had any influence in game play, could be good rewards as well.

[elitecom]

Return of environmental hazards!
 
In Mass Effect 1 you travel to several planets and encounter environmental hazards, ranging from extreme heat or cold, dangerous planetary ecosystems, and obvious hazards such as lava streams or pools. In Mass Effect 2 on Haestrom you also encountered radiation.
Now as seen in Mass Effect 1 and 2 planets can present a variety of dangers, now there wouldn't be a good credible exploration atmosphere without them. Mass Effect 1&2( Mass Effect 2 took some more liberties in this area, for example how some squad members only needed a breathing mask to survive in alien environments ) sought to create a credible universe, not only story wise but also scientifically. Something they managed very well, this credibility was only strengthen by environmental hazards being present.
 
Because let's face it, most terrestrial planets in space are barren(only one out of five in our solar system is lush and habitable by human standards), and they suffer from extreme heat caused by our radiating star or a dense atmosphere creating a Venusian hothouse(as seen in Venus). While Pluto suffers from extreme cold because of its location.
Other planets might even lack dense enough atmospheres(such as the Moon), now Mass Effect 1 did very well in this regard, giving us a wide variety of planets to explore some with credible environmental hazards(caused by their atmosphere, ecosystem, or the system's star) which added to the credibility and atmosphere of being in space.
 
So how should these environmental hazards function? Well not much different than in Mass Effect 1 really. They worked quite well there, you stay outside your vehicle for too long and your environmental suit will cease to provide you with sufficient protection and you'll take damage. Also on planets which suffer from extensive radiation, to position yourself behind structures which hides you from direct contact with the radiation will work as well, just as in Haestrom.
 
However things doesn't need to end there, as in Mass Effect 1, there were certain armours which would give you increased protection from environmental hazards, these elements should return as well. You should be able to have those kinds or armour, but also be able to upgrade them(with armours mods) for further protection, this might become especially valuable if you're going on a mission to a planet with strong environmental hazards. In space on barren unknown worlds, nothing is every simple.  
Here's a link to the ME Wiki for more information regarding hazards:masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Hazard

Modifié par elitecom, 13 juillet 2011 - 08:28 .

[Foolsfolly]

AlanC9 wrote...

How about having none of this at all?

I mean, really. The final war with the Reapers has started, and Shepard's running around on barren worlds?

This is roughly my opinion as well. The Reapers are here. The civilizations of the galaxy are being systematically wiped out.

Can we not stop on every barren planet we come across for resources and distress signals? The whole galaxy is one giant distress signal.

So how should these environmental hazards function? Well not much different than in Mass Effect 1 really.

I'd rather the enviroments be destructible and reactive. Fighting in an urban area against Reapers? Watch out for falling buildings. Crossing a bridge? Beware it may fall and break.

Debris used in physics attacks (like throwing them into enemies behind them), the classic explosive barrels, and all other kinds of reactive enviroments.

That's the hazard. Static hazard on barren planets make sense but again...why would Shepard be doing something not related to the Reapers when they're barreling down on the galaxy? How selfish can you get?

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 13 juillet 2011 - 08:41 .