221 réponses à ce sujet

[Whatever42]

People are overlooking something. In both ME1 and ME2, there were only a handful of main missions - about 6 per game. Everything else is a "side-mission".

In ME1, there was some decent stories for the missions, such as repel the Geth invasion or find my kidnapped sister or track down the evil scientist. However, the actual execution of every mission sucked ass. It was the same cookie-cutter combat and the conclusions had little emotional impact.

In ME2, most of the side missions where the character missions: save my sister, help Grunt join his clan, help the assassin save his sun. These were very, very, very well done. The missions were mostly very well designed and had tremendous emotional impact. In fact, the problem was that they were so well done and the main missions lacked so little emotional impact that they overshadowed the rest of the game.

Sure, ME2 had some minor shoot stuff up missions, such as retrieve the courier or track down the source of the computer virus but those were just a handful. I wouldn't object to having those better done as well but overall, I don't understand why people would complain.

[Kaiser_Wilhelm]

I enjoyed the side missions in ME1 and ME2.

[AlanC9]

The PLC wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...
ME2 is ONLY sidequests, so im not sure how to answer for that game.

Ha... ha... haaaah.

Like I said upthread, some folks have a really bad conceptual scheme for RPG quests. When someone tries to force ME2 into that scheme silly stuff like this comes out.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 août 2011 - 02:34 .

[DarkSeraphym]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

In ME2, most of the side missions where the character missions: save my sister, help Grunt join his clan, help the assassin save his sun. These were very, very, very well done. The missions were mostly very well designed and had tremendous emotional impact. In fact, the problem was that they were so well done and the main missions lacked so little emotional impact that they overshadowed the rest of the game.

Sure, ME2 had some minor shoot stuff up missions, such as retrieve the courier or track down the source of the computer virus but those were just a handful. I wouldn't object to having those better done as well but overall, I don't understand why people would complain.

How does one define a "main mission" though? I think it is important we establish that first because there is nothing typical about the way playthroughs and the story itself works in the ME franchise. I define it as any mission that allows for the overall story to continue or are necessary for completion of the game. The issue that I see in defining the loyalty missions as side missions is that should you not complete any of those missions at all, you will have to start a new game just continue on with the series in the way that it was intended to be done, by importing because your Shepard is going to die in the Suicide Mission.

When I think of a side mission, I think of missions that aren't even slightly necessary for pushing the story along through all of the games in the series. These missions may have some kind of impact through benefits or consequences, but they aren't necessary from getting from Point A in ME1 to Point B in ME3.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 01 août 2011 - 02:43 .

[MarchWaltz]

ME2 side mission almost had no dialogue trees. They were literally shooting galleries

[ErichHartmann]

I must have played a different game. I run through every side quest when I play ME2 and enjoy every minute of it.

[Whatever42]

jreezy wrote...

I believe when people are referring to side-missions in ME2 their talking about the N7 Mission type stuff exclusively, not the Loyalty missions. 

Fair enough but those are simply 20% of the ME2 missions. And some are pretty good with different goals, such as save the quarian survivor, track down the computer virus, and light up the laser beacons.

Its not all land here and kill the mercenaries. And unlike ME1, most are quite varied. Compare that with the land here, drive 5 minutes in the MAKO and clear out cookie-cutter bunker 512. Its a huge, huge improvement and was fun to play. 

[AlanC9]

MarchWaltz wrote...

ME2 side mission almost had no dialogue trees. They were literally shooting galleries

You mean "N7 missions" rather than "side mission"

And what of it? I can't see how adding some dialogue with someone you're about to shoot would have been an improvement for any of the N7 missions. That seems to be what was "bettter" about the ME1 missions from the posts here.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 août 2011 - 02:56 .

[Whatever42]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

How does one define a "main mission" though? I think it is important we establish that first because there is nothing typical about the way playthroughs and the story itself works in the ME franchise. I define it as any mission that allows for the overall story to continue or are necessary for completion of the game. The issue that I see in defining the loyalty missions as side missions is that should you not complete any of those missions at all, you will have to start a new game just continue on with the series in the way that it was intended to be done, by importing because your Shepard is going to die in the Suicide Mission.

When I think of a side mission, I think of missions that aren't even slightly necessary for pushing the story along through all of the games in the series. These missions may have some kind of impact through benefits or consequences, but they aren't necessary from getting from Point A in ME1 to Point B in ME3.

None of the loyalty missions were specifically required to complete the game. You did need to run some recruitment missions and then a small number of further recruitment or side missions (any would do) to trigger events. If you like the Garrus, Jack, Mordin, and Grunt recruitment missions were necessary but that's it. 

You do not need to complete any loyalty missions. You can survive quite easily without them.

Now, i think bioware wanted to make these missions feel more necessary than ME1, where the little side ventures were 100% useless in the main game. In fact, on ME1 playthroughs, I skip most because their useless to the mission and dull. But I don't think that's a sin.

[nhsk]

AlanC9 wrote...

MarchWaltz wrote...

ME2 side mission almost had no dialogue trees. They were literally shooting galleries

You mean "N7 missions" rather than "side mission"

And what of it? I can't see how adding some dialogue with someone you're about to shoot would have been an improvement for any of the N7 missions. That seems to be what was "bettter" about the ME1 missions from the posts here.

You wasn't going to shoot everyone in ME1 side missions with proper dialogue, even the one where you are supposed to shoot everything up, you could talk your way out of.

[LPPrince]

On the contrary, I find ME1's more fun to play. Vastly, actually.

If I have no motivation to play them, I can't find them that fun.

Even if they turn out to be well made, there's no pre-existing desire to do them in ME2.

In ME1, speaking to someone and getting the assignment from an NPC or Hackett made me WANT to play those assignments.

I was able to overlook the same bunkers over and over due to a combination of that, the beautiful vistas in space, and my enjoyment of using The Mako on UNC's.

In ME2, they were just there to be there. Felt no need to do them, felt no desire to do them, but I did them all anyway to carry them over to the next game.

So as a whole, I find ME1's to be superior to ME2's.

Still, combining the best of both would be ideal.

[darknoon5]

In terms of gameplay I prefered the ME2 side quests, though I do wish there was some dialogue in them and a way to obatin them such as in ME1 though.

IMO they were better then the ME1 side quests. Go into one of four building templates, kill some mercs, finish. The only ME1 side quests I had much enjoyment from were the chain ones, eg. Rachni, Thorian, Cerberus. And even they were hampered by the terrible re-used enviroments.

Modifié par darknoon5, 01 août 2011 - 03:07 .

[LPPrince]

jreezy wrote...

LPPrince wrote...

On the contrary, I find ME1's more fun to play. Vastly, actually.

If I have no motivation to play them, I can't find them that fun.

Even if they turn out to be well made, there's no pre-existing desire to do them in ME2.

In ME1, speaking to someone and getting the assignment from an NPC or Hackett made me WANT to play those assignments.

I was able to overlook the same bunkers over and over due to a combination of that, the beautiful vistas in space, and my enjoyment of using The Mako on UNC's.

In ME2, they were just there to be there. Felt no need to do them, felt no desire to do them, but I did them all anyway to carry them over to the next game.

So as a whole, I find ME1's to be superior to ME2's.

Still, combining the best of both would be ideal.

Some people seem to think combining the dialog of ME1 with the uniqueness of ME2's environments is a bad thing. Personally, I see nothing nothing wrong with doing that. In fact, I see combining the best of both games as the next logical step.

I agree with you, but too much uniqueness can be a bad thing.

I don't think we need these stupid little "Press a button, end quest" assignments.

We need assignments with multiple ways to complete them ala ME1.

Multiple endings for them, again ala ME1.

Multiple ways to acquire them, ala ME1.

Exploration, ala ME1 but more like ME2's Overlord DLC.

ME2's variety, but to a lesser extent.

Basically, take all the little things that made ME1 assignments great, add them to ME2 assignments, and boom.

[Whatever42]

If you're comparing the better ME1 side missions to the N7 missions then yes, they're better. At least in story. But again, you're not being fair. You need to compare the better ME1 side missions to the recruitment and loyalty missions in ME2, in which case ME2 wins hands down. They are much better designed in ME2 and have real emotional impact.

Now, I'm not going to complain if they decide to make the N7 missions better but they do have a budget here.

[LPPrince]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

If you're comparing the better ME1 side missions to the N7 missions then yes, they're better. At least in story. But again, you're not being fair. You need to compare the better ME1 side missions to the recruitment and loyalty missions in ME2, in which case ME2 wins hands down. They are much better designed in ME2 and have real emotional impact.

Now, I'm not going to complain if they decide to make the N7 missions better but they do have a budget here.

How is that fair? That's apples to oranges. You shouldn't compare assignments to main story missions, and yes, ME2 recruitment and loyalty missions were the main story. It was the whole point behind the game.

If it wasn't and the non-recruitment/loyalty main missions were, then they REALLY fell short of ME1's main story. And even some of its UNC's.

See what I did there?

Modifié par LPPrince, 01 août 2011 - 03:44 .

[OSUfan12121]

Most ME1 side-missions were actually good. They all had a decent backstory and fairly good dialogue and each was the same but different in its own way. ME2 only had about 4 side-missions that werent run in, kill bad guys for no reason, end mission.

[Therefore_I_Am]

I think ME3 side-missions need more of a horror effect. It is afterall the reaper invasion, why not some more twists.

It's like those thorian creepers and husks in the research facilities and space freighters in ME1, or the mining facility on that red planet in ME2.
In ME3 it could be something similar; except your in a seemingly abandoned city on some colony, and some stranger runs up to you raving stark mad about monsters, then huskified aliens and humans come swarming in from all directions.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 01 août 2011 - 04:08 .

[LPPrince]

The PLC wrote...

OSUfan12121 wrote...

Most ME1 side-missions were actually good. They all had a decent backstory and fairly good dialogue and each was the same but different in its own way. ME2 only had about 4 side-missions that werent run in, kill bad guys for no reason, end mission.

Way more than 4. 

Okaaaaaaay.

Five.

[LPPrince]

Therefore_I_Am wrote...

I think ME3 side-missions need more of a horror effect. It is afterall the reaper invasion, why not some more twists.

It's like those thorian creepers and husks in the research facilities and space freighters in ME1, or the mining facility on that red planet in ME2.
In ME3 it could be something similar; except your in a seemingly abandoned city on some colony, and some stranger runs up to you raving stark mad about monsters, then huskified aliens and humans come swarming in from all directions.

Eh, I could see that coming though. For a horror effect, they could have an assignment where Shepard is trying to do something(whatever, really) and gets knocked out cold.

He has a dream where everything is peaceful and serene, as it should be, but then NINJA HUSK jumps out of nowhere and loudly screams at the screen, waking Shepard up in a panic. This whole dream segment could only last like 10 seconds and it'd still make people jump in their seats.

[AlanC9]

LPPrince wrote...

The PLC wrote...

OSUfan12121 wrote...

Most ME1 side-missions were actually good. They all had a decent backstory and fairly good dialogue and each was the same but different in its own way. ME2 only had about 4 side-missions that werent run in, kill bad guys for no reason, end mission.

Way more than 4. 

Okaaaaaaay.

Five.

The no reason bit's nonsense anyway, so the actual number is 19.

[TexasToast712]

Arppis wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had pretty decent side missions. ME2 had sucky ones.

www.youtube.com/watch

Yes, lets go in Generic Bunker number 1 and spam your AR/Pistol at everything until its clear then move on to Generic Bunker number 2 and repeat. At least ME2 had variation.

Modifié par TexasToast712, 01 août 2011 - 05:22 .