221 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

There were some decent onesin ME1 but the locations were a let down. Preferred ME2 as they felt like they spent the time to make each one unique. I remember the first time i landed on the blood pack one where visibility is nigh on zero and managed to get lost a coupleof times despite the beacons lighting the way.

[Ahglock]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fata Morgana wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

As for the cheesy talking and context for why you are there making it a better mission, it is almost like this is also an RPG or something.   

So what you're saying is, for a game to be a true RPG, the writing, directing, and acting have to be poor quality? They must be 'cheesy', otherwise it's not an RPG?  Because the dialogue in 2 is so far above 1 it's not even funny. 

Ahglock's obvious response to this is that the N7 missions don't really have any dialogue, so even if ME2's dialogue is better that can't be a point in the N7 missions' favor.

(Just figured I'd move this forward a step)

I thought that point was obvious, but thanks for advancing the discussion.  .  And honestly I was using the term cheesy just because I was quoting someone who used it.  I think the ME1 writing was vastly superior to the ME2 writing, but that is a what is better chocolate or peanut butter debate.

 The tangible differences you can at least argue about.  I just value the the ME1 strengths more than I value the ME2 strengths in regard to the side missions.  It would be nice if ME3 had the best of both obviously.  

[The Spamming Troll]

AlanC9 wrote...

So you're arguing against yourself?

At least that one's winnable.

not as easily won as you might assume.

(i saw someone else quote themselves and i thought it was awesome.)

[Ramus Quaritch]

At least Mass Effect 1 had an in-game explanation to the similar layout of the buildings for the side missions. That explanation being that those were pre-fabricated/manufactured building types that were mass-produced for cheap to be used on frontier worlds. Does it change the fact that the side missions happened in the same buildings? No. But at least it's more reasonable than some other games. *cough cough* Dragon Age 2 *cough cough

[RedCaesar97]

In ME1, you had only a few main missions but a lot of UNC assignments. And because you gained XP for each enemy you killed, it meant you had to complete a large number of UNC assignments to gain more XP. I found the thrill of exploring a uncharted world soon became an exercise in tedium as I spent more time driving the Mako around looking for minerals, ID tags, Matriarch writings, and unlockable containers than actually completing the mission. Some of the assignments were well-done but it got tedious after a while.

I remember reading or viewing somewhere (wish I could find it), that the N7 missions in ME2 were designed as "10-minute missions": something that you could complete in about 10 minutes or less. Most of them (enter building, shoot mercs, get out) were similar to the UNC missions but without the driving.

Now some of the UNC missions did include a somewhat-developed plot (Hostile takeover, for example) and some included persuade options, but most were just like the N7 missions--scan planet > land on planet > shoot mercs > get out--but in the same 4 areas (ship, mine, prefab building, prefab bunker).

I think I prefer the N7 missions over the UNC missions but they are about the same.

In terms of sidequests, both ME1 and ME2 were kind of lame:
ME1: Look for Gavin Hostle's OSD
ME2: Get packages for Ish
ME1: Resolve the C-Sec/Hanar situation
ME2: Resolve the indentured servant Quarian situation
ME1: Conrad Verner is a creepy stalker
ME2: Conrad Verner is an idiot

[Il Divo]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

At least Mass Effect 1 had an in-game explanation to the similar layout of the buildings for the side missions. That explanation being that those were pre-fabricated/manufactured building types that were mass-produced for cheap to be used on frontier worlds. Does it change the fact that the side missions happened in the same buildings? No. But at least it's more reasonable than some other games. *cough cough* Dragon Age 2 *cough cough

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that information was given in game, but was provided by a Bioware developer after release.

And this still does introduce the issue of "boring lore". Sure, the mass-produced bunkers may have a lore explanation, but it doesn't make the experience any less tedious.

[RedCaesar97]

Il Divo wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

At least Mass Effect 1 had an in-game explanation to the similar layout of the buildings for the side missions. That explanation being that those were pre-fabricated/manufactured building types that were mass-produced for cheap to be used on frontier worlds. Does it change the fact that the side missions happened in the same buildings? No. But at least it's more reasonable than some other games. *cough cough* Dragon Age 2 *cough cough

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that information was given in game, but was provided by a Bioware developer after release.

And this still does introduce the issue of "boring lore". Sure, the mass-produced bunkers may have a lore explanation, but it doesn't make the experience any less tedious.

I think that information may have been added in the Bring Down the Sky DLC.

[McAwesum]

The side missions in ME1 at least made sense; even the bunkers and such looked the same. The side missions in ME2 hardly gave you any context and if you don't read the mission screens they don't bother explaining anything to you during the mission itself.

[The Spamming Troll]

RedCaesar97 wrote...

In ME1, you had only a few main missions but a lot of UNC assignments. And because you gained XP for each enemy you killed, it meant you had to complete a large number of UNC assignments to gain more XP. I found the thrill of exploring a uncharted world soon became an exercise in tedium as I spent more time driving the Mako around looking for minerals, ID tags, Matriarch writings, and unlockable containers than actually completing the mission. Some of the assignments were well-done but it got tedious after a while.

your not required to be a certain level to complete ME1.

i like both options for sidequests. i like ME2s randomness in scene and some of the puzzle ones were nice filler too. i like ME1s more involved stories, and there presentation from finding the mission, to completeing the mission.

im not sure how the 3rd attempt at sidequests would be worse then the previous 2, so im not too worried.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 03 août 2011 - 01:45 .

[Rocket_Man77]

the side quest in ME 2 were too short, and there weren't enough. The only good thing about them was the large variety of environments. Every side quest seemed like it was in a totally different area (which is good). Hopefully in ME 3 side quest will be longer, and more story oriented.

[AlanC9]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

So you're arguing against yourself?

At least that one's winnable.

not as easily won as you might assume.

(i saw someone else quote themselves and i thought it was awesome.)

This is getting way too recursive for me. I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
And this still does introduce the issue of "boring lore". Sure, the mass-produced bunkers may have a lore explanation, but it doesn't make the experience any less tedious.

Same problem as no-ammo guns?

[Gatt9]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

RedCaesar97 wrote...

In ME1, you had only a few main missions but a lot of UNC assignments. And because you gained XP for each enemy you killed, it meant you had to complete a large number of UNC assignments to gain more XP. I found the thrill of exploring a uncharted world soon became an exercise in tedium as I spent more time driving the Mako around looking for minerals, ID tags, Matriarch writings, and unlockable containers than actually completing the mission. Some of the assignments were well-done but it got tedious after a while.

your not required to be a certain level to complete ME1.

i like both options for sidequests. i like ME2s randomness in scene and some of the puzzle ones were nice filler too. i like ME1s more involved stories, and there presentation from finding the mission, to completeing the mission.

im not sure how the 3rd attempt at sidequests would be worse then the previous 2, so im not too worried.

The major problem with ME2's quests are that they offer no opportunity for further progression.  There's nowhere you can go from "Hey,  get me a fish!" or "The guard won't let me leave".  Versus ME with the criminal lady,  the psychotic computer,  or the hostage situation.  While all ME2 did was make them emails,  or a 1 line conversation,  the potential was there.

While with ME2,  it's all just throwaway with only one or two exceptions.  None of it can have any further impact.  The sidequests were completely disposable compared to ME.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
And this still does introduce the issue of "boring lore". Sure, the mass-produced bunkers may have a lore explanation, but it doesn't make the experience any less tedious.

Same problem as no-ammo guns?

Exactly. Lore can be designed around gameplay without compromising the entire setting. In this case, Bioware gave us generic environments and provided a justification to give it greater credibility, which failed. We could easily have had the opposite scenario, where each side quest occupies a unique environment, without that atrocious lore explanation. As a whole, I doubt the Mass Effect setting would be changed significantly either way.

Modifié par Il Divo, 03 août 2011 - 03:51 .

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

The major problem with ME2's quests are that they offer no opportunity for further progression.  There's nowhere you can go from "Hey,  get me a fish!" or "The guard won't let me leave".  Versus ME with the criminal lady,  the psychotic computer,  or the hostage situation.  While all ME2 did was make them emails,  or a 1 line conversation,  the potential was there.

While with ME2,  it's all just throwaway with only one or two exceptions.  None of it can have any further impact.  The sidequests were completely disposable compared to ME.

The underlined 2 is a typo, right? You seem to be talking about ME1 there.

I'm not sure how better potential matters for the version of ME1 that we're actually playing, as opposed to some parallel-universe ME1 where that potential was realized. Sure, they could have done more stuff with those quests. But they didn't. One might as well say that ME2 would have had better sidequests if they'd written different sidequests.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 août 2011 - 04:04 .

[Afalstein]

I liked the missions in Mass Effect 1 and the locations in Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 had a LOT more side missions, and they tended to vary in story, tone, and tactical approach. Most had nothing to do with Saren or any of your crewmates, and each had their own little story. They created a real sense of the life of a diverse galaxy, full of individual problems. Very realistic, in my opinion.

The only thing that sucked was the locations. They were ALL the same, which became pretty noticeable after a while and pretty unbelievable. Granted, SOME similarity in construction is inevitable, but all of them?

Mass Effect 2 handled this better by varying structures some, but they came short on the missions. EVERY side mission (outside of the loyalty ones) involved either the Blue Suns, the Eclipse, or the Blood Pack. And they all had the same solution. Kill, kill, kill. No biotic cultists to talk down, no rogue VI's to disarm, no Cerebrus bases (obviously) to investigate. Just blowing up random mercenaries. Much less compelling than the varied missions of Mass Effect 1.

[Savber100]

I'm playing Fallout: New Vegas right now and doing the sidequest about the missing rancher's son in the White Glove Society. You know what, OP? I agree.

ME needs better sidequests.

I think what games like Bethesda got right is the sheer fun of sidequests. Hell.. it's even better than the main quests in every way. ;P

Modifié par Savber100, 03 août 2011 - 04:11 .

[AlanC9]

Afalstein wrote...
Mass Effect 2 handled this better by varying structures some, but they came short on the missions. EVERY side mission (outside of the loyalty ones) involved either the Blue Suns, the Eclipse, or the Blood Pack.

Really? Abandoned Mine involves husks. Anomalous Weather Detected and Imminent Ship Crash involve geth. Endangered Research Station and Mining the Canyon are about mechanical failures. Quarian Crash Site is about alien predators. Wrecked Merchant Freighter, Abandoned Research Station, and Hahne-Kedar Facility are about a VI virus. And while MSV Estevanico was destroyed by the Blood Pack, there are none present when you get there, and the mission is about exploring the wreck.

So nine or ten of the 19 N7 missions have nothing to do with mercs.

(I'm too lazy to do the links. Here's the wiki page with all the assignments)

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 août 2011 - 07:32 .

[REgentleman]

Lord_Omega1995 wrote...

I have to say that I was taken aback several times in ME1 when I saw the same layouts of buildings again... and again... and again.

To the universe's credit, it's possible prefabs were all the rage back then.

[CuseGirl]

Question, why were the ME-2 side missions called "N7" missions, when Shep isn't working for the Alliance and the Alliance clearly wasn't doing their job?

[slimgrin]

NugatRevolution wrote...

The missions (if you can call them that) you get by exploration are just..  Bad.


I hope this changes in ME3.  Because ME1 and 2's "side missions" were just halfassed, buggy, and just plain terrible.  

If it is a choice between having bad ones and not having any, I'd prefer the latter.

Woah. I don't know what to say other than I disagree with this 100% In general ME2 side misions were better, albeit more combat oriented. The sense of random discovery via the galaxy map was removed. I also loved certain side misions in ME1, like the Cerberus scientists, the abandoned space station, the geth outposts. Awesome stuff.

[Chromie]

slimgrin wrote...
Woah. I don't know what to say other than I disagree with this 100% In general ME2 side misions were better, albeit more combat oriented. The sense of random discovery via the galaxy map was removed. I also loved certain side misions in ME1, like the Cerberus scientists, the abandoned space station, the geth outposts. Awesome stuff.

Definitely. Mass Effect 1 missions were all combat related so the only difference was I didn't have to waste so much damn time traveling the same copy and pasted planet. Now if Bioware decided to make more side missions on uncharted planets like Overlord dlc that would be great.

Maybe fewer but bigger.