71 réponses à ce sujet

[Kataphrut94]

There's not a problem with linearity and it fits from a story perspective. In Mass Effect 1 & 2 you were given a whole bunch of jobs/dossiers and told to get cracking. In Mass Effect 3, there's more time pressure and the chain of events is very specific:

Earth is attacked, Shepard sent to Council to get help for the war.
Council won't help, turian councillor offers support in exchange for rescuing the turian primarch from Palaven.
Turian primarch dies before Shepard can rescue them, has to deal with new Primarch, Victus who is a noted unorthodox strategist.
True to his reputation, Victus suggests bringing in the krogan to help Palaven.
Krogan won't help without cure for the genophage, sets off a quest to create one using Eve.

It would have hurt the game if at any point during that string of deals, someone said "Shepard, you could always pop over to the quarian home-world and ask for their help". Focus is important.

[mtmercydave09]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

There's not a problem with linearity and it fits from a story perspective. In Mass Effect 1 & 2 you were given a whole bunch of jobs/dossiers and told to get cracking. In Mass Effect 3, there's more time pressure and the chain of events is very specific:

Earth is attacked, Shepard sent to Council to get help for the war.
Council won't help, turian councillor offers support in exchange for rescuing the turian primarch from Palaven.
Turian primarch dies before Shepard can rescue them, has to deal with new Primarch, Victus who is a noted unorthodox strategist.
True to his reputation, Victus suggests bringing in the krogan to help Palaven.
Krogan won't help without cure for the genophage, sets off a quest to create one using Eve.

It would have hurt the game if at any point during that string of deals, someone said "Shepard, you could always pop over to the quarian home-world and ask for their help". Focus is important.

Yeah, linearity is not necessarily bad, but it does contrast with ME1 & ME2.  The forced linearity in ME3 is also due ot the fact that I feel Bioware was trying to cram it all into one game just so they could wash their hands and rid themselves of the trilogy and end it.  Theres so much to the universe, the trilogy could have gone 4 or 5 games.

Modifié par mtmercydave09, 06 avril 2013 - 11:05 .

[Brovikk Rasputin]

ME3 is no more linear than ME1. What a silly thread.

[Revthejedi]

It's a pretty linear game, but so are most every shooter.

[robertthebard]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

I can see where you're coming from, OP. One related aspect that I personally hated was that every mission seemed time-sensitive/critical/of utmost importance, so you never really knew which one to prioritize. For example, I personally thought curing the genophage was more important than helping Grissom Academy, so my plan was to hit Grissom right after curing the genophage. I was pretty irritated to learn that the Grissom Academy mission disappears after the genophage storyline is closed. I had no in-game hints or warnings that this would happen (other than Traynor saying that they need help, but...so does everyone else in the game at that point).

You had no hints that Cerberus was attacking the academy, and that a bunch of students might not be able to hold them off until you decided it was time to go?  The majority, if not all of side quests were set up this way, and it is working as intended.  The same is true of the main quests, even though they won't disappear.  They appear in the story where they have to.  You cannot go to Tuchanka and cure the Genophage, or not, until you know you have to.  You can't go to Palaven and rescue the Primarch until you know that the Primarch needs rescuing.  You cannot convene the summit until you have the Primarch, and know that there's a summit that needs convening.

But let's look at what happens if you decide Rannoch should be done before Palaven:

1.  Menae likely falls.  With it, Garrus falls, oops, minus 1 squad mate, and no Primarch.
1a.  Hey, no Primarch means no Turian support.  This could be further complicated if you didn't save the Council in ME 1, since they'll be likely to believe you're putting your own interests first, again, and let the Primarch die.  So no Council support for Earth.  Note that this position doesn't even require much in the way of headcanon, one can simply look back at ME 1 and 2 to see what they would do.

You see, unlike other RPGs where you get a list of quests to do, and you can indeed do them in any order, the Reapers and Cerberus are going to go about their business whether you are there or not.  This is why you can fail the N7 missions by not going within a certain amount of time.  Just because you don't believe they are important, doesn't mean the enemy in question is just going to wait for you to show up.

[Obadiah]

Well, in the two main chapters of the story, it isn't too linear. After Sur'Kesh and before curing the Genophage there are are bunch of missions (Bomb1, Bomb2, Rachni, Gissom, misc N7 missions) you can complete in any order. Between Geth Dreadnaught and resolving the Geth/Quarian conflict there are several missions you can complete (Lessus, Cerberus Base, Geth Fighters, Save Koris, misc N7 missions).

Overall though, yup, it is a pretty linear game. More linear than other Bioware games, but sort of distilling the design of many recent Bioware games of "doing the same thing with choice of attitude."

Modifié par Obadiah, 08 avril 2013 - 01:51 .

[Liamv2]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

ME3 is no more linear than ME1. What a silly thread.

This ME3 just did a poor job of hideing it

[Linkenski]

ME3 was much more linear as I experienced it. You mostly had only 1 main mission at a time, when they could in fact have split up Tuchanka and Rannoch into being sort of a Feros and Noveria of the game, where you could choose for yourself, which one to do first. The mission structure isn't the worst thing, and in fact it is only minor, when you consider the fact that you can always go to the citadel or often get N7 missions as well as the "old-crew" missions, like Grissom Academy.

I think the dialogue and the mission objectives were the two things that made it seem much more linear though. Mission objectives are often "assault the cerberus something" or "infiltrate the geth blahblah" and decisions in sidemissions always come down to "who will repair the guns", where in Mass Effect 2, which is more character-focused of course, you often had to decide something that determined your loyalty.

Mass Effect 3 just has a different focus in its story, and that's just how it is. For me it made it worse and inferior to ME1 and ME2, because i love freedom in games.

[Obadiah]

Liamv2 wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

ME3 is no more linear than ME1. What a silly thread.

This ME3 just did a poor job of hideing it

Yeah, wouldn't have minded a few more Noveria garage key missions though. But then, I can still go back and play ME1.

Modifié par Obadiah, 08 avril 2013 - 02:29 .

[SwitchN7]

I'm still maintaining my opinion that 3 was/is the best of the trilogy. I understand why the need for so many changes for the conclusion of Le Trilogy. I do not agree with most of them. Ex: The "dumbing" down of the conver. wheel but i understand it/them and the need for it/them. But with over 1000 man hours spent in this trilogy i still find 3 the best.

[Fixers0]

SwitchN7 wrote...

I'm still maintaining my opinion that 3 was/is the best of the trilogy. I understand why the need for so many changes for the conclusion of Le Trilogy. I do not agree with most of them. Ex: The "dumbing" down of the conver. wheel but i understand it/them and the need for it/them. But with over 1000 man hours spent in this trilogy i still find 3 the best.

That must be a joke.

[SwitchN7]

Fixers0 wrote...

SwitchN7 wrote...

I'm still maintaining my opinion that 3 was/is the best of the trilogy. I understand why the need for so many changes for the conclusion of Le Trilogy. I do not agree with most of them. Ex: The "dumbing" down of the conver. wheel but i understand it/them and the need for it/them. But with over 1000 man hours spent in this trilogy i still find 3 the best.

That must be a joke.

I leave it to your own personal interpretation because that is how we roll this days ok?

[Mastone]

WittingEight65 wrote...

You are in a race against time to save Earth and you want to explore the whole galaxy (a.k.a. optional missions)? Are you kidding?

And yet there is time for a little party at the Citadel with a fight against your doppleganger..apparently the ME3 team was kidding too...it would at least explain the poor overall quality

[BLAHBLUE2001]

robertthebard wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

I can see where you're coming from, OP. One related aspect that I personally hated was that every mission seemed time-sensitive/critical/of utmost importance, so you never really knew which one to prioritize. For example, I personally thought curing the genophage was more important than helping Grissom Academy, so my plan was to hit Grissom right after curing the genophage. I was pretty irritated to learn that the Grissom Academy mission disappears after the genophage storyline is closed. I had no in-game hints or warnings that this would happen (other than Traynor saying that they need help, but...so does everyone else in the game at that point).

You had no hints that Cerberus was attacking the academy, and that a bunch of students might not be able to hold them off until you decided it was time to go?  The majority, if not all of side quests were set up this way, and it is working as intended.  The same is true of the main quests, even though they won't disappear.  They appear in the story where they have to.  You cannot go to Tuchanka and cure the Genophage, or not, until you know you have to.  You can't go to Palaven and rescue the Primarch until you know that the Primarch needs rescuing.  You cannot convene the summit until you have the Primarch, and know that there's a summit that needs convening.

But let's look at what happens if you decide Rannoch should be done before Palaven:

1.  Menae likely falls.  With it, Garrus falls, oops, minus 1 squad mate, and no Primarch.
1a.  Hey, no Primarch means no Turian support.  This could be further complicated if you didn't save the Council in ME 1, since they'll be likely to believe you're putting your own interests first, again, and let the Primarch die.  So no Council support for Earth.  Note that this position doesn't even require much in the way of headcanon, one can simply look back at ME 1 and 2 to see what they would do.

You see, unlike other RPGs where you get a list of quests to do, and you can indeed do them in any order, the Reapers and Cerberus are going to go about their business whether you are there or not.  This is why you can fail the N7 missions by not going within a certain amount of time.  Just because you don't believe they are important, doesn't mean the enemy in question is just going to wait for you to show up.

Your first point is different from ME1 though... I can choose to to go to Noveria first while Liara is stuck in some bubble and Feros is under siege.  Yet, once I complete Noveria and move on to Feros I see the colonist are still alive as well as Liara. The game forces you to play in the direction Bioware decided and its justifiable though a little more freedom would have been nice.

Whos to say that Garrus and the Primarch will die while I help Tali and Legion? Liara survied being stuck in a bubble with an angry Korgan hitman waiting to get at her while I liberated Feros from the Geth in some playthroughs. The reason why Palaven seems so pressing is simply because thats order it was presented. If you first mission was to stop the Quarians and the Geth from killing each other we would be arguing how important it was to stop them before we loose a whole group of allies and characters like Tali or Legion.

 

Modifié par BLAHBLUE2001, 11 avril 2013 - 01:26 .

[BLAHBLUE2001]

Mastone wrote...

WittingEight65 wrote...

You are in a race against time to save Earth and you want to explore the whole galaxy (a.k.a. optional missions)? Are you kidding?

And yet there is time for a little party at the Citadel with a fight against your doppleganger..apparently the ME3 team was kidding too...it would at least explain the poor overall quality

This too of course... Though I headcannon my Adept Shepard has already won before I start the Citadel. Once I do I dont bother to go to earth etc

[Spartas Husky]

I would have added overlord pieces throughout the game, ditch the MP, as good as it is. The galaxy feels small, room to room engagements. Needed more space station attacks. More boaring, more geth dreadnought -ish scenrio

[PwrdOff]

I don't get complaints about games being too linear, you need some logical order of events to actually progress the narrative in a sensible manner. It's pretty infeasible to change the dialogue and missions completely based on every possible sequence you could choose, so what always ends up happening in non-linear games is that the main story gets put on hold while you grind out a bunch of side missions that have little or no relevance to the overall plot.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Liamv2 wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

ME3 is no more linear than ME1. What a silly thread.

This ME3 just did a poor job of hideing it

No it didn't.

[Hey]

they are all linear in terms of the main story-line. Is it "too" linear? I don't really care about that as much as I do having dialog options to establish my character. This isn't to say I wouldn't like game-play that is more diverse, I certainly would.

[Liamv2]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

ME3 is no more linear than ME1. What a silly thread.

This ME3 just did a poor job of hideing it

No it didn't.

To me the galaxy in ME1 and 2 to a lesser extenct felt big while in ME3 it felt like i was just moving between enclosed shooting gallerys even though ME3 actually had a longer main storyline

[FlyingSquirrel]

It was, though on the plus side, there was less of the disconnect over "why is Shepard doing X when there are 10 other emergencies supposedly needing attention" that I sometimes felt during ME1 and ME2. The main thing I would have changed would have been to allow you to choose whether to do the Tuchanka or Rannoch sequence first. While I'd probably still do Tuchanka first with some playthroughs, there are others where I'd have liked to be able to recruit Tali earlier in the game and to hear reactions from Mordin, Wrex, and the other main Tuchanka/Sur'Kesh players on how you handle the geth/quarian situation.

[MetioricTest]

BNN999 wrote...

I don't get complaints about games being too linear, you need some logical order of events to actually progress the narrative in a sensible manner. It's pretty infeasible to change the dialogue and missions completely based on every possible sequence you could choose, so what always ends up happening in non-linear games is that the main story gets put on hold while you grind out a bunch of side missions that have little or no relevance to the overall plot.

And yet, ME2 was less linear.