71 réponses à ce sujet

[alterIncogn1T0]

Was it just me, or did Mass Effect 3 seem a bit more linear than previous titles in the series?

It is of my observation that in ME1, the primary story missions could be accomplished in any order, and even before the Ilos mission, you were able to complete any remaining side quests.

In ME2, you were able to complete primary story missions (recruitment and loyalty) in any order before encountering key plot missions, and even complete side missions before launching the suicide mission, albeit at the cost of your Normandy crew.

But in ME3, it seemed that the key missions had a clear and defined order. Granted, you could complete certain "important" missions (side quests envolving cameo characters) in a flexible order, but these missions were only available at certain moments in the progression of the story. Also, we were not able to complete major plot missions in a flexible order. One obvious example: you cannot recruit the geth/quarians without having recruiting the turians/krogans/salarians first.

Maybe it was my own imagination, but I had hoped that I'd be able to save certain races from the progression of the Reaper threat in my order of the value of their species. Would things have been different if I was able to help the Asari first, and THEN attend to the situation on Palaven and Tuchunka? Or would such wild flexiblity have screwed too much with the epic story of ME3? Please discuss, but NOT ABOUT THE ENDING.

I'm tried of it, and would like a change of attitude in BSN.

[BiO]

Probably done for better pacing.

[Stalker]

It was pretty open actually.
The side-missions were just perfectly integrated into the story-line, so you don't really recognize it.

[wetnasty]

Just you.

[clarkusdarkus]

i agree, the whole priority mission wasnt for me, didnt seem a freedom of choice, more forced to do certain quests before times up. i was hoping for more side quests but lot of them was just mining for randoms on citadel.

[xxLDZxx]

3rd person shooter follow the rail and shoot every thing that moves.

Long hall way=talking
Arena=fighting
over and over again.

[wetnasty]

Example: -If you didn't do Jack's mission early enough, she was taken by Cerberus.
-If you did Wrex's side missions as well as the Turian Primarch's early enough, you got to talk to them about it on the Normandy. If not, they sent you an email.
-Could go on, but I think you get the gist.

[corkey sweet]

the whole game was linear. not to mention a lot of dialog choice was cut in favor of cut-scenes. which was garbage. way less control over character interactions

Modifié par corkey sweet, 19 mars 2012 - 11:55 .

[GBGriffin]

My playstyle was pretty much: planet scan -> mission -> talk to Normandy crew -> go to Citadel and repeat, but I didn't really have an issue with it. It was an enjoyable game.

Was ;_;

[alterIncogn1T0]

corkey sweet wrote...

the whole game was linear. not to mention a lot of dialog choice was cut in favor of cut-scenes. which was garbage. way less control over character interactions

That was another quip I had with the story progression. <_< Granted, the diologue was great and executed well by fantastic voice work, but I still wanted a bit more control over the direction of the conversation, even if that control is just illusionary.

[Primalrose]

It's an illusion, really. ME2 is almost the same length as ME3. In ME1 and ME2 you had the choice to do more things in the order you wanted but everything was still rail-roaded. It's just alot more apparent in ME3.

[Bantz]

I felt it was pretty linear. I think the lack of a lot of side missions and no real squad member recruitment quests cause that. But I think it worked alright.

[SaladinDheonqar]

Yes. The side quests were a bit of a joke (the citadel ones), only 1 hub, and very little to do except the main story. Perhaps it helped the pacing & feel of the story, but it was still far too linear for me.

[alx119]

Yeah it was more linear than the other two games, but the pace was surprisingly well done. I wish we would have seen more of the Quarians and Geth, or well SOONER, but it was ok for me. For some reason I had this stupid feeling that after the final mission I'd be able to visit the people I took care off. Or just roam around with the Normandy crew and listening to their aftermath banter.

Oh well...

[Icophesis]

Actually, I just thought of something, had they broken up the linearity, they had a real chance to change the outcome. Think about it, if we could save Palaven, Tuchanka, Rannoch, etc in any order, perhaps planets we saved later would be more screwed than if we rescued them earlier? So if you waited too long, Palaven would be completely gone and be nothing but Marauder Shields.

Different playthroughs could yield different results on what species lived or died. Ohwell, another missed opportunity -__-

[Mad Mr Toasty]

i liked the game for what it was, but it was lacking in certain areas, bioware could have made up for that by putting the hammerhead into the game & given us some land based missions, i think at LEAST 5 land based hammerhead missions would have evened things out all things considered

[pharsti]

The game needed to be more linear, like have a lack of "citys" because, honestly, its supposed to be galaxy at war.

I wouldnt know how the quests itself change, would have to brain bleach to play another playthrough.

[sadako]

Its the conclusion so being linear is expected. I liked that they built in accomodating mechanics for the characters killed off. It was beautiful... Then i got the ending. Damn now u reminded me of the ending again.

[hoodie_gypsy]

I like that it forced our focus. It would feel wrong if they just gave us the map with all the open missions and said "Just pick whichever race/planet to help, no rush. Heck, take the mako out for a spin, maybe go see if the monkeys have stolen anything we need for the war." It *was* linear, but I think it worked well with the tone of the game and the timing of the story.

[Clive Howlitzer]

It was a lot more linear than the prior games at least in regard to the directions every conversation could take. I didn't realize how much until I went back to play ME1-2 and saw that every conversation had a full wheel of options whereas almost all of ME3 was just two.

[Prism]

It may have a been more linear but some sense of urgency was necesary. Things like postponing Grissom Academy to do Tuchanka and Rannoch wouldn't have been realistic.

[Ticondurus]

I missed the "anomaly" sidequests from ME2. Yes, planet-scanning sucked but I liked discovering those. Wish they had some "surprise" quests like that in ME3. Some of those were terrific gems (like exploring the teetering ship.)

[Shared]

Didnt mind the linearity. There was some diversity, but come on.ME 3 is less about non linear gaming, and more about player choice. I was anyway far to emotionally invested in the amazing story to actually care about any of the flaws, or other minor issues anyway. Untill i saw the endings(s) that is offcourse. But still i did enjoy the ride there. Some freaking amazing scenes.

[Vhalkyrie]

I felt it was a lot more linear than the previous games, but I was willing to look past it. Up until the last few minutes, it was epic.

[Overdrive1493]

it had to be linear& less dialogue choices, shepard references all of his past choices in the dialogue, fromboth games