664 réponses à ce sujet

[MetalCargo999]

While technically I did take Earth back, I definitely did not feel like I did. What I mean is that there was no payoff at all at the end. ME 1 had a great ending with the armada around the citadel. ME 2 did an epic ending properly, involving everyone on your team; a fantastic step forward in the genre. ME 3... well... one step forward, two steps back, it seems...

[Faenshaer00]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The reason why I'm asking these questions in a directed way is because this topic is related to the expectations that some fans felt were established based on the Take Earth Back prerelease trailer.  By the way a lot of people were talking, if we had scenes like that but actually in game, it would have helped contribute to the perception of taking back earth.  Which is interesting because you don't actually see any alien species fighting along side humans in that trailer.  Not even one of Shepard's companions (only Ashley).

So there was a bit of a disconnect between what different groups of people are saying, and I'm not saying if any perspective is more correct or not.  A lot of other people talked about how they would have liked more missions and stuff like that, to help put it on par with Rannoch and Tuchanka.

My leaning is that "more content" would have contributed to the feeling more, but there are certainly a large number of people that make me think that "we don't need more content, just greater reflection of our allies" might be a larger contributor.

Allan, on a semi-related note, the Take Earth Back prerelease trailers and commercials had me psyched for the retake Earth missions.  And then I got to Earth and enjoyed the first part getting to the base and getting through the waves.  The constant waves was really the only time I struggled but that was more my fault for playing on Standard.  But by the time I got to the charge the beam and then went into the beam, I literally paused the game for about an hour or so and youtubed the ending.  Those commercials and trailers showed some amazing ideas and sequences and the end of the game didn't jive with that at all even before we met TIM and starchild.  

The commercials are some absolutely fantastic CGI work, easily up there with the stuff the best put out like Blizzards CGI trailers for instance or Squaresoft back in the day.  And then I get back to Earth and all the things shown and built up as an expectatioin fall flat.  I don't know if the game was rushed out not and  I don't expect to know if it was or not until 10 or more years from now when a candid tell all can be done without ruffling feathers or breaching contracts.  But I do know that everything about the storytelling at the end, starting right around when the charge for the beam decision is made just felt off.  The whole Earth mission felt rushed, both developmentally and storytelling-wise.  It felt like Priority: Earth should have lasted at least twice as long as it did. 

ME3 is easily the shortest of the 3 games.  I don't have my ME1 anymore but I know I spent at least 60 hours on it the first time, granted lots of wasted time spent running back and forth in the Citadel, do not miss that.  Even on my most recent ME2 that I just did on Casual to quickly whip through the game took me around 48 hours.  Doing everything, talking to everybody, scanning everything, etc in ME3 took me only 32 hours or so.  I honestly don't remember the last time I felt content beating an RPG in such a short time, I don't expect the incredible time sink of my favorite RPG Xenogears (usually takes me 100 hours) but if Priority: Earth had been put into multiple missions so it lasted an extra hour or two it would have helped level the whole thing out and allowed for the exposition to help setup and explain some of what was to come.  Frankly while I think I understand what they were attempting with starchild it doesn't feel executed overly well and that alone made me think maybe Indoc Theory could be right, especially since I have yet to find a sensible reason for whats happening with the Normandy.  Overall ME3 hit a lot of right notes but it seems to go completely off key right when it should have been finishing in a triumph.

[MrGone]

Faenshaer00 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...
*snip*

Allan, on a semi-related note, the Take Earth Back prerelease trailers and commercials had me psyched for the retake Earth missions.  And then I got to Earth and enjoyed the first part getting to the base and getting through the waves.  The constant waves was really the only time I struggled but that was more my fault for playing on Standard.  But by the time I got to the charge the beam and then went into the beam, I literally paused the game for about an hour or so and youtubed the ending.  Those commercials and trailers showed some amazing ideas and sequences and the end of the game didn't jive with that at all even before we met TIM and starchild.  

The commercials are some absolutely fantastic CGI work, easily up there with the stuff the best put out like Blizzards CGI trailers for instance or Squaresoft back in the day.  And then I get back to Earth and all the things shown and built up as an expectatioin fall flat.  I don't know if the game was rushed out not and  I don't expect to know if it was or not until 10 or more years from now when a candid tell all can be done without ruffling feathers or breaching contracts.  But I do know that everything about the storytelling at the end, starting right around when the charge for the beam decision is made just felt off.  The whole Earth mission felt rushed, both developmentally and storytelling-wise.  It felt like Priority: Earth should have lasted at least twice as long as it did. 

ME3 is easily the shortest of the 3 games.  I don't have my ME1 anymore but I know I spent at least 60 hours on it the first time, granted lots of wasted time spent running back and forth in the Citadel, do not miss that.  Even on my most recent ME2 that I just did on Casual to quickly whip through the game took me around 48 hours.  Doing everything, talking to everybody, scanning everything, etc in ME3 took me only 32 hours or so.  I honestly don't remember the last time I felt content beating an RPG in such a short time, I don't expect the incredible time sink of my favorite RPG Xenogears (usually takes me 100 hours) but if Priority: Earth had been put into multiple missions so it lasted an extra hour or two it would have helped level the whole thing out and allowed for the exposition to help setup and explain some of what was to come.  Frankly while I think I understand what they were attempting with starchild it doesn't feel executed overly well and that alone made me think maybe Indoc Theory could be right, especially since I have yet to find a sensible reason for whats happening with the Normandy.  Overall ME3 hit a lot of right notes but it seems to go completely off key right when it should have been finishing in a triumph.

It does sort of feel like Earth should have almost been an entire game, doesn't it? Like a reverse of Final Fantasy 7, where once you get to Midgar, you find it's way larger and more complex than you heard. At least if the trailers are to be believed anyway.

Yeah, more missions would have been nice, but there's the issue of time and the situation at hand. Obviously there are like a hundred thousand Reapers in orbit over Earth fighting your trillion strong fleet. That's a battle that might take a day at most to resolve. There just can't be a seriously long set of missions to fit within that span.

Heck, the time I spent at the FOB, while nice, felt a bit extraneous.

That being said, it does feel as if Priority: Earth needed to be a BIT longer and definitely larger in scope.

Like, I dunno, something in Indepenence Day, where we get to see that following Shepard's lead, cells across the world strike out all at once. Something that allows us to see our War Assets at work in various ways.

Besides, the Conduit was too easy to get to. It was guarded by ONE medium sized Reaper, not even a Sovereign class, and at that point, this was something we've killed two of. It does feel like there should have been a couple more steps to getting to that charge, and maybe even some more getting to the FOB, to justify its length.

I guess it's just a disappointingly simple mission, especially compared to the final missions in ME2 and 1.

ME1 - Linear mission but long. Battle to open doors, long drive, info reveal, intense drive to conduit, lots of fighting on the citadel including on the Citadel's exterior(!), and probably best Boss Battle in the series. Little payoff on previous choices though.

ME2 - Honeycomb Network of choices playing out, with 3 distinct parts, an approach with the tunnels, an approach with the biotic AND a boss battle. Lots of payoff of previous effort in seeing who survives this mission.

ME3 - Three parts, but the first is rather short, and there's a BIG delay between it and the next part which is intense and fun defense mission, but then the last part - the charge - is cut short due to plot and NO BOSS BATTLE. No Vehicle sections, no payoff on previous choices.

You might be able to see how one of these is not like the others.

[Faenshaer00]

Well the lack of boss battle is ok but it needs to be handled properly. The reason video games put boss battles in is because they offer a level of closure to the story. It's one of the reasons the final boss battle of FF9 is so weird because it introduces a hitherto unknown force to the story but we all just shrug it off shake our heads and say crazy Japanese people. ME doesn't really do boss battles in a traditional sense anyhow, which honestly stems from the fact that a TPS doesn't allow for some of the creative mechanics that make you hit your head against a wall the way a traditional action or RPG would. Looking at you Phoenix Down for Zombie Dragons, or Kratos vs Kronos.

I am unsure how exactly I would have done Priority: Earth and I prefer not to think about it much as I highly doubt they are going to add a Arrival or Shadow Broker length DLC to specifically modify the Priority: Earth mission and so its kind of a fruitless endeavor. If the ending DLC can make the ending coherent and do a much better job explaining what is actually going on, and what the actual consequences of our actions are and where the heck Joker was off to and why and why our crew is on the Normandy with him... I could probably keep going but it makes me feel bitter so I'll stop.

[Valorefane Dragonwinter]

The other reason for the final battle against the BIG BAD is this; it provides a clear point of where the falling action begins. It's THE climax for most games.

It's also one reason why the ending of ME3 is so... well, what it is.

[vv238email]

I did not take back Earth.
But BioWare took back all their promises.

[Faenshaer00]

Valorefane Dragonwinter wrote...

The other reason for the final battle against the BIG BAD is this; it provides a clear point of where the falling action begins. It's THE climax for most games.

It's also one reason why the ending of ME3 is so... well, what it is.

Well that is what I meant by my statement about closure I didn't particularly mean emotional closure, perhaps climax would have been a better term.  As I said you can get away with doing it without doing a boss battle but you need to do it right.  Which most of us can agree it was not done right.  Most of the people I have seen defend the ending aren't even really defending it they are just saying it wasn't that bad.  When you try to defend something and you use only negatives in your qualifier you aren't defending something.

[Zolt51]

Faenshaer00 wrote...

ME3 is easily the shortest of the 3 games.  I don't have my ME1 anymore but I know I spent at least 60 hours on it the first time, granted lots of wasted time spent running back and forth in the Citadel, do not miss that.  Even on my most recent ME2 that I just did on Casual to quickly whip through the game took me around 48 hours.  Doing everything, talking to everybody, scanning everything, etc in ME3 took me only 32 hours or so.  

To be honest, how much of these 100 hours were spent roaming in the Mako, doing minigames, scanning or running through empty hallways?

Not to say that's the only difference but they did make an effort to trim superfluous content to focus on the core appeals of the game. The big difference I'd say is that the game has become wider instead of longer. ME3 actually has a lot more content, more dialogue, more everything. Only you won't experience all of that content in a single playthrough. In fact, probably not in 10 playthroughs. ME1 had maybe a few dozen points that could be handled in different ways. ME2 upped the ante, and then it all comes piling up in ME3. Practically every dialogue had to be recorded in 2, 3 or more different ways, or with different actors according to previous choices. That's thousands of variables, even if they just each affect one line of dialogue or a tiny bit of the game, the complexity just piles up.
AFAIK, the Mass Effect games are the only series that even tried to do anything like that.

All I want to say is, those of you who say that they made a poor job of taking into account player choices, just lack material for comparison.

One last thing. I don't mind spending 100+ hours on a RPG.. grinding and looting and leveling up and exploring and killing stuff. That's what Skyrim is for. But I don't think that's quite what Mass Effect is about. It is much more strongly story-driven, and I think you need a sense of pacing to make that work.

[Velocithon]

It terms of gameplay, ME3 is way faster and there isn't anything you need to "grind" out, like hacking, Mako runs, planet scanning, etc.

I don't really miss that, to be honest. Sure the Mako was fun, but also very frustrating at times!

I had no problem with ME3's gameplay. I just think the missions weren't meaningful (aside from the major ones).

[Fawx9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

FatalX7.0 wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Okay.  Just so I'm clear, would Priority: Earth felt like you were "taking back Earth" if you happened to see the Rachni, Turians, and Krogans all fighting along side you in the levels provided (i.e. no new levels, no new cutscene).

I think it's a hard question personally haha (and one that we can't really answer definitively unfortunately since it's not the case of what's in the game)

So wait..

Do you mean, like..actually seeing other races fighting as you play?

This seems hard to get into words. I think I know what you mean, but I've never thought about it like that. That would be cool, though, having your war assets actually fight with you.

It could also bring about a better sense of urgency, make things seem more lively.

Yeah.  I'm just examining if lack of seeing our allied forces is really two separate (but related/complementary) issues, or if it is really the same issue.

What I meant by my example was more along the lines of: "If you didn't receive an additional second of extra content, whether it be playable or in a cutscene, but you saw your allies fighting at various points during the level, is that something that makes you feel more like you're taking Earth back, or is it just something that's awesome to see?"

I think the obvious answer here is yes to both.

I mean you guys pulled it off perfectly I felt in DA:O. During the final battle you saw your forces that you gathered come together and charge the city. Then you had the option of calling on the forces to back you up. Not to mention you got to follow not only your character and his selected squad in the final push, but those left at key points to help defend.

It simply felt epic. Every race was rushing into the city to help buy time. To help bring an end to the blight, because they knew it was their last united stand.

Why the same thought process wasn't taken with Take Back Earth I have no idea. To me it wold have been a no brainer to conbine the suicide mission and the final mission in DA:O into one epic level that displayed the importance and utility of the races you gathered and the individual skills of each of your squadmates in one final all or nothing battle.

[Nauks]

No.

The whole London mission felt like an intro to the final take-back-Earth-battle, which obviously never happened.
In no way was that fit to be the final encounter of the game, not even close.

[frostajulie]

I played ME3 twice. Once with a ME3 original femshep per a developers advice. I destroyed the earth in that ending when the citidel exploded the debris would impact the earth with enough force to set fire to the atmosphere and cause an extinction level event.

I played an import and the dev was right it was a completelyt different game. Until I got to the ending where I still destroyed the earth and then miraculously took a breath on earth even though I had just been in space committing genocide to the Geth.

Both different games with the same damn ending and they both sucked. I dod not take back Earth. I destroyed it.It is not because I suck at gaming that I lost the game both times. It is because there is no way to win this game you can only lose by degrees.

[Faenshaer00]

Zolt51 wrote...

Faenshaer00 wrote...

ME3 is easily the shortest of the 3 games.  I don't have my ME1 anymore but I know I spent at least 60 hours on it the first time, granted lots of wasted time spent running back and forth in the Citadel, do not miss that.  Even on my most recent ME2 that I just did on Casual to quickly whip through the game took me around 48 hours.  Doing everything, talking to everybody, scanning everything, etc in ME3 took me only 32 hours or so.  

To be honest, how much of these 100 hours were spent roaming in the Mako, doing minigames, scanning or running through empty hallways?

Not to say that's the only difference but they did make an effort to trim superfluous content to focus on the core appeals of the game. The big difference I'd say is that the game has become wider instead of longer. ME3 actually has a lot more content, more dialogue, more everything. Only you won't experience all of that content in a single playthrough. In fact, probably not in 10 playthroughs. ME1 had maybe a few dozen points that could be handled in different ways. ME2 upped the ante, and then it all comes piling up in ME3. Practically every dialogue had to be recorded in 2, 3 or more different ways, or with different actors according to previous choices. That's thousands of variables, even if they just each affect one line of dialogue or a tiny bit of the game, the complexity just piles up.
AFAIK, the Mass Effect games are the only series that even tried to do anything like that.

All I want to say is, those of you who say that they made a poor job of taking into account player choices, just lack material for comparison.

One last thing. I don't mind spending 100+ hours on a RPG.. grinding and looting and leveling up and exploring and killing stuff. That's what Skyrim is for. But I don't think that's quite what Mass Effect is about. It is much more strongly story-driven, and I think you need a sense of pacing to make that work.

I freely admit to there being tons of superfluous content.  But they went a little too far with cutting back on things in ME3.  ME1 hours upon hours of running around the Citadel, playing with the horrid Mako etc.  ME2 pretty streamlined just the planet scanning which while boring wasn't so bad since you didn't need to do much to get way more then enough resources to get everything done and have 100k left over for ME3.  ME3 scan a whole solar system get the 1-4 items in it dodge Reaper move on.  ME3 had good bones but it was far to lean it needed some more fat beyond the fantastic conversations that you can overhear.

Also I don't think I implied and if I did I certainly didn't mean to imply that they skimped on their overall story telling with the huge variance of dialog.  Overall the game as a whole is fantastic.  It just trips over itself on the one part of the game where that variance stopped mattering, the starchild to my knowledge says and does the same things regardless of any choices you have made beyond EMS.   Also I agree this isn't a Skyrim and for the most part it needs a certain pace, but the final section was flat out paced poorly.  You have a strong Rising Action going most of the game, which hits Earth and practically becomes a verticle line and then somewhere along the line I lose track of what is sposed to feel like the climax.  TIM felt like a better climax then the 3 choices.  The 3 choices and starchild take and turn everything inside out and leave you saying I'm not so sure I like what just happened here.

Modifié par Faenshaer00, 20 avril 2012 - 07:52 .

[Triple4]

Sort of, in about 10k or so years.

[Faenshaer00]

Nauks wrote...

No.

The whole London mission felt like an intro to the final take-back-Earth-battle, which obviously never happened.
In no way was that fit to be the final encounter of the game, not even close.

This sums up what I tried to say in one of my earlier points.