129 réponses à ce sujet

[Pedrak]

Oddly, ME3 felt small for a sci-fi RPG.

ME1, awful physics of the Mako nonwithstanding, at least had the good idea to let us actually explore different planets. By ourselves. Sure, they were mostly similar and empty, so it was a bit of a bore... But the concept was good. Why not improve on that?

ME2 had less free exploration, but at least you could come back to many of the previously visited locations, Tuchanka, Ilium, Omega...

ME3, in spite of the numerous and actually fairly well-designed locations, felt... a little asphyctic and linear.

What's done is done, but I notice that, with DA2 and now this, Bio is moving away from free exploration in their RPGs - while I don't expect them to make Bethesda-like sandbox games, I sure hope this trend stops with their future games.

[SovereignWillReturn]

Agreed. DA2 and ME2/ME3 were tiny.

[thehomeworld]

I do think the lack of exploration did make 3 not as open as it could've felt. With your comment on the mako however you need to treat it like a car and drive it like one the physics weren't the problem and personally I don't think us climbing into mountains or on hilly plains was either the only issue was the way the maps were constructed you had to go into the mountains all the time to get to any valleys.

I was hoping with a few of the side quest we'd be able to take the mako down and explore for what we need and find more prothean beacons hidden as well. I didn't like how all of the side quest were scan you can actually not go to the citadel and scan every star system you come to and find 90% of the items before the npcs even realize they need the item.

[DWH1982]

I also missed the sense of exploration from ME1, though, honestly, I didn't expect driving back because no one seems to like it.

I was, however, expecting N7 missions to be more like ME2. The fact that they weren't, and that most side quests were just scan and grab, was a let down.

[poerksen]

I think the exploration part of ME2 was better than ME1(hub-worlds etc.). I do see potential in the model used in ME1 where you land on planets and go explore, but the planets were simply too boring.

[Raizo]

It did feel very short ( despite the 30 - 40 hours I spent playing it ) and very linear and I think the lack of exploration is the main cause of this. I think ME2 did the exploration right.

Modifié par Raizo, 23 avril 2012 - 05:49 .

[DWH1982]

Lack of exploration was part of the reason it seemed so linear. But it also seemed linear because, well... it was linear.

Remember how, in ME1, you could choose to go to Noveria, Feros, or Therum? And in ME2 how you had a choice of when to do the character recruitment and loyalty missions?

You didn't really have that with the main missions in ME3. You could decide when to do N7 missions and certain non-priority missions, but it was pretty much Citadel to Palaven to Sur'Kesh to Tuchanka, etc., when it came to the main missions.

Modifié par DWH1982, 23 avril 2012 - 05:52 .

[sparkyo42]

Given this and the auto dialogue that they've moved to I think the RPG elements are going to end up bolted onto a call of duty type game. I went back and played ME 1 before the release and I would take the dated graphics and combat system and the Mako over ME 3.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well given the structure of the story, I get the "linear" nature of the events. Didn't really bother me.

But to me, being "non linear" takes more than just choosing what order of a handful of missions I go on is. In that case ME3 is as non linear as ME1 and ME2 because you can choose to do different missions in different orders, but the "plot missions" remain in the same order, same as ME2 in a sense.

But sparky you would take the mess of a combat system of ME1 over 3? Hell I love ME1 but I can honestly say I prefer combat in 2 and 3 over 1 any day of the week.

Also RPG "elements" have existed outside of RPGs for decades now. Nothing new there. Level up systems and stats, etc have been a part of sports/action/adventure games for years now.

Granted i wish I could have done MORE in ME3, but then i've said the same thing about ME2 and ME1 as well. Who knows maybe DLC will change that.

[BrysonC]

DWH1982 wrote...

Lack of exploration was part of the reason it seemed so linear. But it also seemed linear because, well... it was linear.

Remember how, in ME1, you could choose to go to Noveria, Feros, or Therum? And in ME2 how you had a choice of when to do the character recruitment and loyalty missions?

You didn't really have that with the main missions in ME3. You could decide when to do N7 missions and certain non-priority missions, but it was pretty much Citadel to Palaven to Sur'Kesh to Tuchanka, etc., when it came to the main missions.

It really is a baffling change in design philosophy. Makes me wonder what their internal reasoning was.

[Cainne Chapel]

DWH1982 wrote...

I also missed the sense of exploration from ME1, though, honestly, I didn't expect driving back because no one seems to like it.

I was, however, expecting N7 missions to be more like ME2. The fact that they weren't, and that most side quests were just scan and grab, was a let down.

The side quests were things like Grissom's acadamy, Rannoch and Tuchanka side missions and the like.  The scan and grab missions were a time sink, like Resource Gathering in ME1 and Planet Scanning in ME2.  The N7 missions however I thought were interesting ways to tie the MP maps into the single player game and at least they were good for XP and cash.

[b2smooth]

sparkyo42 wrote...

Given this and the auto dialogue that they've moved to I think the RPG elements are going to end up bolted onto a call of duty type game. I went back and played ME 1 before the release and I would take the dated graphics and combat system and the Mako over ME 3.

The original Mass Effect was the vehicle that carried the franchise to success.  The character depth and relationships were built in ME1.  The relationships with Garrus, Liara, Tali, Wrex, and even Ashley, and Kaidan were the foundation for the series.  Open dialog, open environments, and choices were all taken away in ME3.  In most of the situations in ME3 where you actually get to use the dialog wheel, no matter what you chose the other characters have basically the same response taking away from the importance of the choices.

[b2smooth]

BrysonC wrote...

DWH1982 wrote...

Lack of exploration was part of the reason it seemed so linear. But it also seemed linear because, well... it was linear.

Remember how, in ME1, you could choose to go to Noveria, Feros, or Therum? And in ME2 how you had a choice of when to do the character recruitment and loyalty missions?

You didn't really have that with the main missions in ME3. You could decide when to do N7 missions and certain non-priority missions, but it was pretty much Citadel to Palaven to Sur'Kesh to Tuchanka, etc., when it came to the main missions.

It really is a baffling change in design philosophy. Makes me wonder what their internal reasoning was.

EA

[Cainne Chapel]

BrysonC wrote...

DWH1982 wrote...

Lack of exploration was part of the reason it seemed so linear. But it also seemed linear because, well... it was linear.

Remember how, in ME1, you could choose to go to Noveria, Feros, or Therum? And in ME2 how you had a choice of when to do the character recruitment and loyalty missions?

You didn't really have that with the main missions in ME3. You could decide when to do N7 missions and certain non-priority missions, but it was pretty much Citadel to Palaven to Sur'Kesh to Tuchanka, etc., when it came to the main missions.

It really is a baffling change in design philosophy. Makes me wonder what their internal reasoning was.

When you get down to it, at certain points the linearity pops up in ME2 and ME1 as well.

In ME2, sure you could do the recruitment and loyalty missions anyway you liked (of the 2 or 3 offered) but you HAD to do certain plot necessary missions at certain times (the game forced you to).
In ME1, sure you could pick in which order to do Feros, Therum and Noveria and Virmire and such so that WAS a BIT more open but still you had to do certain missions before you had to go BACK to citadel to move the story along and so forth.

So neither of the ME games have been very free form and non linear at the core.  Even the exporable worlds were ONLY explorable IF they had a mission or sidequest available on them. and heck Most of the side quests in ME2 and 3 had WAY more story than any of those (save a few) as most equaled out to the ME3 N7 missions of  shooting galleries in cookie cutter locations.

[Justin2k]

Personal opinion is they should have kept as much of ME1/2 devs as they could and base the game around where the last left off..

They could put in all their fetch quests and multiplayer zones shoehorned into SP, autodialogue and COD type gameplay into a brand new series.

They advertised Mass Effect 3 and gave us a linear, sometimes boring game set in the ME universe but it's a different genre altogether from the others.

[Cainne Chapel]

b2smooth wrote...

sparkyo42 wrote...

Given this and the auto dialogue that they've moved to I think the RPG elements are going to end up bolted onto a call of duty type game. I went back and played ME 1 before the release and I would take the dated graphics and combat system and the Mako over ME 3.

The original Mass Effect was the vehicle that carried the franchise to success.  The character depth and relationships were built in ME1.  The relationships with Garrus, Liara, Tali, Wrex, and even Ashley, and Kaidan were the foundation for the series.  Open dialog, open environments, and choices were all taken away in ME3.  In most of the situations in ME3 where you actually get to use the dialog wheel, no matter what you chose the other characters have basically the same response taking away from the importance of the choices.

People could argue the dialogue wheel was just an illusion of choice too as shep would say the same things regardless of what you chose.

ME1 DID like the ground work but most of the popular characters (Garrus, Wrex, etc) depth came from more of their interactions in ME2 (ESPECIALLY Tali).

Open exploration in environments has been gone since ME2, thats nothing new (Except overlord DLC which was nice... need more of that.  Nice expansive side missions with vehicle interaction).

Choices were still available in 3 (big ones even) but yes dialogue DID take a hit in the autodialogue category to a great degree.

Dont get me wrong ME1 was awesome, but lets not act like it was the perfect game and free from all faults, it wasn't.

[sparkyo42]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well given the structure of the story, I get the "linear" nature of the events. Didn't really bother me.

But to me, being "non linear" takes more than just choosing what order of a handful of missions I go on is. In that case ME3 is as non linear as ME1 and ME2 because you can choose to do different missions in different orders, but the "plot missions" remain in the same order, same as ME2 in a sense.

But sparky you would take the mess of a combat system of ME1 over 3? Hell I love ME1 but I can honestly say I prefer combat in 2 and 3 over 1 any day of the week.

Also RPG "elements" have existed outside of RPGs for decades now. Nothing new there. Level up systems and stats, etc have been a part of sports/action/adventure games for years now.

Granted i wish I could have done MORE in ME3, but then i've said the same thing about ME2 and ME1 as well. Who knows maybe DLC will change that.

My problem with the combat system is that it and I presume the Multiplayer got the resources. If I had to take the ME 1 combat but have actual conversations and less Fed Ex quests I'd certainly take the mess and the dated graphics. I mean the conversations really bug me, I accepted them for Zaeed and Kasumi as DLC but replacing the majority of conversations with it?

As to RPG elements, I know these have existed out of RPG's my point is that ME 3 feels that, It's not an RPG but a deeper narrative structure of a FPS, which would be fine if that was what it started out to be, instead you have a new RPG IP in ME 1 that is a shadow of an RPG be ME 3, in my opinion anyway.

[Cainne Chapel]

Justin2k wrote...

Personal opinion is they should have kept as much of ME1/2 devs as they could and base the game around where the last left off..

They could put in all their fetch quests and multiplayer zones shoehorned into SP, autodialogue and COD type gameplay into a brand new series.

They advertised Mass Effect 3 and gave us a linear, sometimes boring game set in the ME universe but it's a different genre altogether from the others.

You do realize Fetch quests are a staple of RPGs right?  Besides they weren't that bothersome and literally took seconds to complete if you scan everything like I did in ME2.

I also dont have a problem with the MP zones in SP, gives me more missions to run if anything. I cant complain with extra XP and more hackett dialogue.

Hmm never seen ANY of the ME games as boring... especially not ME3 (Mako exploration after the 3rd playthrough though yeah... that gets annoying).

I dont think ME3 is much different from ME2 except having better gameplay, more RPG elements (customizing, weapon choice etc) and worse autodialogue. Hell my choices in ME2 and ME1 had more of an impact on ME3 than ME1 to ME2 did.

[Cainne Chapel]

sparkyo42 wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well given the structure of the story, I get the "linear" nature of the events. Didn't really bother me.

But to me, being "non linear" takes more than just choosing what order of a handful of missions I go on is. In that case ME3 is as non linear as ME1 and ME2 because you can choose to do different missions in different orders, but the "plot missions" remain in the same order, same as ME2 in a sense.

But sparky you would take the mess of a combat system of ME1 over 3? Hell I love ME1 but I can honestly say I prefer combat in 2 and 3 over 1 any day of the week.

Also RPG "elements" have existed outside of RPGs for decades now. Nothing new there. Level up systems and stats, etc have been a part of sports/action/adventure games for years now.

Granted i wish I could have done MORE in ME3, but then i've said the same thing about ME2 and ME1 as well. Who knows maybe DLC will change that.

My problem with the combat system is that it and I presume the Multiplayer got the resources. If I had to take the ME 1 combat but have actual conversations and less Fed Ex quests I'd certainly take the mess and the dated graphics. I mean the conversations really bug me, I accepted them for Zaeed and Kasumi as DLC but replacing the majority of conversations with it?

As to RPG elements, I know these have existed out of RPG's my point is that ME 3 feels that, It's not an RPG but a deeper narrative structure of a FPS, which would be fine if that was what it started out to be, instead you have a new RPG IP in ME 1 that is a shadow of an RPG be ME 3, in my opinion anyway.

Combat has functioned the same since ME2 when they drastically changed the system, for the better  I say, it fits the world a lot better than the clunky system of one did.

I can understand being upset with autodialogue, the Kasumi and Zaeed treatment though? I really didn't mind as the character at least mentioned more of the events going on around thema nd actually interacted with each other more than in ME1 or ME2 combined.

Also for most of the characters you get at least 2 to 3 actual depth conversations with a good wheel.  But with a lot of them you already know whats going on with them given the last 2 games so what more can really be said?  If you look at it there's more talk time with the characters in 3 than even 2, because in ME2 while you had the wheel, the dialogue didn't change much except before and after the loyalty missions in most cases.  So you would just go in endless circles of the same thing. Like garrus' calibrating.

AS for RPG elements, ME3 had more than ME2 which people complained about, and roughly as much as ME1.  But then the ME series has NEVER been a heavy RPG series, it's ALWAYS been a Action-RPG.  All the RPG elements in ME1 ALL revolved around combat as theyd o in ME3.  So other than the way they went about it, I dont see much different.  Other than the fact we dont hack lock boxes for credits anymore... we just open salvage.

[sparkyo42]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

sparkyo42 wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Well given the structure of the story, I get the "linear" nature of the events. Didn't really bother me.

But to me, being "non linear" takes more than just choosing what order of a handful of missions I go on is. In that case ME3 is as non linear as ME1 and ME2 because you can choose to do different missions in different orders, but the "plot missions" remain in the same order, same as ME2 in a sense.

But sparky you would take the mess of a combat system of ME1 over 3? Hell I love ME1 but I can honestly say I prefer combat in 2 and 3 over 1 any day of the week.

Also RPG "elements" have existed outside of RPGs for decades now. Nothing new there. Level up systems and stats, etc have been a part of sports/action/adventure games for years now.

Granted i wish I could have done MORE in ME3, but then i've said the same thing about ME2 and ME1 as well. Who knows maybe DLC will change that.

My problem with the combat system is that it and I presume the Multiplayer got the resources. If I had to take the ME 1 combat but have actual conversations and less Fed Ex quests I'd certainly take the mess and the dated graphics. I mean the conversations really bug me, I accepted them for Zaeed and Kasumi as DLC but replacing the majority of conversations with it?

As to RPG elements, I know these have existed out of RPG's my point is that ME 3 feels that, It's not an RPG but a deeper narrative structure of a FPS, which would be fine if that was what it started out to be, instead you have a new RPG IP in ME 1 that is a shadow of an RPG be ME 3, in my opinion anyway.

Combat has functioned the same since ME2 when they drastically changed the system, for the better  I say, it fits the world a lot better than the clunky system of one did.

I can understand being upset with autodialogue, the Kasumi and Zaeed treatment though? I really didn't mind as the character at least mentioned more of the events going on around thema nd actually interacted with each other more than in ME1 or ME2 combined.

Also for most of the characters you get at least 2 to 3 actual depth conversations with a good wheel.  But with a lot of them you already know whats going on with them given the last 2 games so what more can really be said?  If you look at it there's more talk time with the characters in 3 than even 2, because in ME2 while you had the wheel, the dialogue didn't change much except before and after the loyalty missions in most cases.  So you would just go in endless circles of the same thing. Like garrus' calibrating.

AS for RPG elements, ME3 had more than ME2 which people complained about, and roughly as much as ME1.  But then the ME series has NEVER been a heavy RPG series, it's ALWAYS been a Action-RPG.  All the RPG elements in ME1 ALL revolved around combat as theyd o in ME3.  So other than the way they went about it, I dont see much different.  Other than the fact we dont hack lock boxes for credits anymore... we just open salvage.

My problem with the autodialogue is that it makes you a passive observer of the interaction, you could argue it was the same before but at least the wheel gave the veneer of choice in the conversation. It's just after replaying 1the others are left feeling shallow and weak compared to it. Take Wrex's armour quest in ME 1, sure it was a just combat but it meant something,in ME 2/3 it would be a probe launch and that would be it. They both achieve the samething but one feel more real than the other.

[thunderhawk862002]

I agree. The cinematics and key storyline missions made the game feel a lot larger than it really was. Then you add the streamlining of the story because they didn't want people to miss out on content from choices made in the previous games made it feel even smaller.

[abaris]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

AS for RPG elements, ME3 had more than ME2 which people complained about, and roughly as much as ME1.  But then the ME series has NEVER been a heavy RPG series, it's ALWAYS been a Action-RPG.  All the RPG elements in ME1 ALL revolved around combat as theyd o in ME3.  So other than the way they went about it, I dont see much different.  Other than the fact we dont hack lock boxes for credits anymore... we just open salvage.

Depends on what you call RPG elements.

Obviously not the same as me. When I talk about RPG elements I mean character interaction, not technical character buildup. I mean choices in storyline and conversation and not weapon choices.

If you look at it from that kind of angle, ME3 certainly comes in second compared to the others of the series.

[Fireblader70]

You say Bioware is moving away from free exploration in their games, but the Dragon Age team has said that their next project will be closer to Skyrim in terms of freedom to explore than their previous games.

Whether that actually happens is another matter, but at least they recognise that it's a nice touch. And if it goes well they may use it for other games, so I wouldn't make any solid conclusions about Bioware's future just yet...

[AlanC9]

Pedrak wrote...

Oddly, ME3 felt small for a sci-fi RPG.

Whenever someone says this, I always have to ask... did KotOR feel small, too?