129 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainne Chapel]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

^
define 'exploration' in ME3, without the words eavesdropping, and planet scanning.

i dare you.

for me, i LOVED being dropped out on a desloate planet with only a map and a simple objective. obviously they werent meant to be that awesome by my 17th or so playthrough, but ill always remember the feeling i had exploring in the mako in ME1. you should have realized the collection quests were pointless, sorry you followed through with those.

ME2s sidequests werent so much exploring as they were random tiny little adventures. from what i remember i liked all of them. but they didnt give me the same sense of scale that ME1s exploration offered.

ME3s exploration in non existant. unless you consider probing planet fetch quests as exploration. eavsdropping in ME3 is a lazy attempt at making sidequests. its not what i adn alot of fans expected ME3s sidequests to be, considering the 2 games before it. hell, one qiuck stop at the spectre terminal and i didnt even need to eavsdrop or probe. does that still count as exploration, when i dont explore?

Why do people insist that the fetch quests were side quests?

Loyalty Missions and N7 missions in ME2 were side quests,, planet scanning wasn't it was a time sink.  Thats what the ME3 fetch quests are.  Its ME3s time sink.

ME3 side quests were once again, n7 missions, Grissoms academy or Rannoch/Tuchanka side quests, etc.  and those were great.  and heck we got a nice throwback in the ME3 N7 missions at least with Hackett giving us the low down like he did in ME1.

[mauro2222]

Lack of patience seems to be the problem...

Shoot and... shoot again <_<

[Il Divo]

DaJe wrote...

But a game is not a movie. A game can give you the freedom to explore the fictional universe that is being given to you. And like you said, you can play it many times with different priorities.

I think you misunderstood the point of my example: I wasn't replaying Mass Effect simply to have different priorities, I was replaying it to observe how much no exploration/side-quests impacted my enjoyment of the experience. And as it turned out, Mass Effect was infinitely more enjoyable without side quests than with side quests, especially regarding barren planets. Side quests felt like a distraction, and an unenjoyable one at that, in comparison to past Bioware efforts.

In my first playthrough I enjoyed the story and the sense of galactic exploration no other game ever came close to deliver.

And that's fair. However, I enjoyed for the former while absolutely despising galactic exploration. Between that and Baldur's Gate 1, I'm not certain exploration is even close to Bioware's forte`.

Modifié par Il Divo, 24 avril 2012 - 02:53 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Come on now Mauro. Shooting has ALWAYS been the main thing in ME. Shooting and Biotic powah!

Name me four missions in the entire ME series where you DONT shoot things or at least blow them up with fabulous displays of biotic or tech power .

I can really only think of 2 missions... and both of those were in ME2.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

They cut it because Shooters don't have exploration and loot,  and they were far more interested in trying to attract TPS fans than they were in continuing to make RPG's. 

That's all it was.

It couldn't also have had anything to do with the fact that some of us didn't enjoy it?

Modifié par Il Divo, 24 avril 2012 - 02:58 .

[Il Divo]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Come on now Mauro. Shooting has ALWAYS been the main thing in ME. Shooting and Biotic powah!

Name me four missions in the entire ME series where you DONT shoot things or at least blow them up with fabulous displays of biotic or tech power .

I can really only think of 2 missions... and both of those were in ME2.

There's also the mission with Opold on Noveria and talking down the Hanaar with the C-sec officer. There's also the Shiala/General Septimus mission.

[Sidney]

DWH1982 wrote...

Honestly, they could have implimented exploration within the plot by adding one simple line from Hackett after Earth:

"Shepard, one more thing: To aid with the construction of the crucible, you have a mandate to search for prothean technology wherever you might find it."

And, with that, you have justification for exploring uncharted worlds, even in the middle of a war - and presumably stumbling on to side missions along the way.

Wait, you mean all the fun of searching for rocks and downed probes again? Can we wrap it inside an annoying time sink of a driving game with boring landscapes?

Franlkly that line still doesn't help. Surely there are some stumblebums who can look for crap lying on the ground better than your elite special ops guy.

[AlanC9]

Cainne Chapel wrote...
Why do people insist that the fetch quests were side quests?

Because the fetch quests show on the same tab as missions do. If Bio had a different tab for them we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

They cut it because Shooters don't have exploration and loot,  and they were far more interested in trying to attract TPS fans than they were in continuing to make RPG's. 

That's all it was.

It couldn't also have had anything to do with the fact that some of us didn't enjoy it?

No. We don't count. We're the wrong kind of RPG fans.

[Sanunes]

Mass Effect 2 didn't feel any bigger then Mass Effect 3 for me for there was very little choice in what direction you were going and with Mass Effect 1 driving on the planets wasn't really exploration it was driving on an empty planet and spending 2min fighting between the Mako and the planets geometry to get to your destination. You have to go back to Baulder's Gate to really feel like you were exploring in a BioWare game for me.

[Cyne]

This is one of the worst aspects of ME3, coupled with the autodialog it makes the game feel very linear.

[Cainne Chapel]

Il Divo wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Come on now Mauro. Shooting has ALWAYS been the main thing in ME. Shooting and Biotic powah!

Name me four missions in the entire ME series where you DONT shoot things or at least blow them up with fabulous displays of biotic or tech power .

I can really only think of 2 missions... and both of those were in ME2.

There's also the mission with Opold on Noveria and talking down the Hanaar with the C-sec officer. There's also the Shiala/General Septimus mission.

Aha! Nice one! But are those really missions? They were glorified fetch quests really (which seems to be a bad thing around here....).

But by missions i meant ACTUAL missions where you get off the ship.  The two i was thinking of were the ones in ME2 where you land on the planet to fix the shields and salvage the ruined ship.

most hub quests cant really count because you really dont ever "Fight" in the hubs.

[Cainne Chapel]

Gatt9 wrote...


They cut it because Shooters don't have exploration and loot,  and they were far more interested in trying to attract TPS fans than they were in continuing to make RPG's. 

That's all it was.

Thats not true, EVERYONE loves loot.
Just look at MMOs... the REAL RPGs of the industry! 


But lets face it, ME2 and 3 have loot, you get to find new guns, and armor etc.  Sure they didn't have ME1 mods, but ME3 has mods of its own.  and at least this time theweapons are more than just a palette switch right?

and well... ME1 IS a TPS... AND an RPG. So I'm sure they want both fans as it is a genre straddling game.


But i firmly agree unless they're going to give every planet proper exploration, may as well not do it and focus on tighter story based side quests.

Now if every mission could be similar to Overlord in which you have a large explorable map with mini side quests while doing and overall main quest that has a story to it, I'd like that too.  It'd be much preferrable to ME1's set up.

But i'd imagine it'd be difficult to get more than a few like that considering the resources that went into Overlord (great mission by the way). 

Or on the flipside i'd like more missiosn like LOTSB where you havve multiple set pieces and locations, etc.  I'd give up wanting exploration if i had more missions like that

[wizardryforever]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Come on now Mauro. Shooting has ALWAYS been the main thing in ME. Shooting and Biotic powah!

Name me four missions in the entire ME series where you DONT shoot things or at least blow them up with fabulous displays of biotic or tech power .

I can really only think of 2 missions... and both of those were in ME2.

There's also the mission with Opold on Noveria and talking down the Hanaar with the C-sec officer. There's also the Shiala/General Septimus mission.

Aha! Nice one! But are those really missions? They were glorified fetch quests really (which seems to be a bad thing around here....).

But by missions i meant ACTUAL missions where you get off the ship.  The two i was thinking of were the ones in ME2 where you land on the planet to fix the shields and salvage the ruined ship.

most hub quests cant really count because you really dont ever "Fight" in the hubs.

Thane's loyalty mission and Samara's loyalty mission involve no gunplay.  Except in cutscenes.  There's your four missions.  But I don't think there are five.  Your point is still valid.

I'd also like to point out that there is still plenty of exploration in ME3.  You explore the galaxy to find war assets (which are pretty necessary), and you explore on foot to find weapons, credits, and mods, along with mini-quest items. 

And ME1's exploration wasn't really much in the way of exploration, either.  Every system that you can go to in ME1 had a mission in it, exploration on the galaxy map consisted of looking for asteroids and bringing up the planet view and pushing "survey."  Which is really weak compared to ME2 and 3, where you don't know what you'll find in a system.  In ME2, you have to randomly find most N7 missions, and many systems don't even have anything besides minerals in them.  But you don't know that until you actually explore them.  And when you did land in the Mako, you could bring up your handy-dandy map to show you where everything of importance was.  Doesn't the presence of a pre-marked map kind of ruin exploration?  It's more like a checklist than exploration at that point.

[wizardryforever]

Calinstel wrote...

For what it's worth, off the top of my head is Major Kyle, ME1

That one doesn't count, as it can be resolved with gunplay, if your social skills suck, or you just want to shoot stuff.

[wizardryforever]

Calinstel wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

For what it's worth, off the top of my head is Major Kyle, ME1

That one doesn't count, as it can be resolved with gunplay, if your social skills suck, or you just want to shoot stuff.

Ah, but it DOES count.  It can be resolved without any gunfire what so ever. 

The question was about missions with no gunplay whatsoever, not missions that can be resolved that way if you happen to play your cards right.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well it seems my inquiry was right there are about 4 or 5 throughout the series.
Intriguing.

Anyway I do agree with the exploration in ME1 being akin to a checklist rather than actual exploration. For uncharted planets it was odd to have a list of all the major..."blips" as it were.

The one thing I can say ME1 had going for it was "Range" when it came to those areas firefights. But it was possible to get hopelessly stuck in some of those terrains which was a bit silly.

[Fixers0]

wizardryforever wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

For what it's worth, off the top of my head is Major Kyle, ME1

That one doesn't count, as it can be resolved with gunplay, if your social skills suck, or you just want to shoot stuff.

Ah, but it DOES count.  It can be resolved without any gunfire what so ever. 

The question was about missions with no gunplay whatsoever, not missions that can be resolved that way if you happen to play your cards right.

Yes, Freedom of choice, Remember that, now name me one instance post Me1 outside of Mordin 's Recruitment Mission where the player has a choice to engage the enemy or not.

[slimgrin]

Pedrak wrote...

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.

It doesn't just feel small, it utilizes action game level design, with weapon drops placed at convenient locations and zero navigation. With few exceptions, levels in ME3 are some of Bioware's most linear yet. The entire notion of exploring a galaxy, something that was present in ME1and still intact in ME2, is gone.

[Mole267]

Mass Effect 1 was BIG. Plus it was more RPG-oriented. Remember in ME1, you got XP for KILLING stuff? It seems like in ME2 and 3, you just get XP has the game progresses. I remember in ME1, you got MORE XP if you killed difficult enemies on foot instead of in the Mako. ME2 streamlined it and cut away most of the RPG stuff (probably due to demand), and they made everything smaller and more easy to navigate. But they did such a great job, it didn't even matter. Everything in it was gold... The characters, the epic soundtrack, the missions, dialogue scenes and the choices you could make, and the whole story was just grand. Plus it was worth playing through numerous times, due to how many possible outcomes there were in the end. I have 260 hours logged in Steam for ME2. ME3, I haven't even finished my second playthrough. I've got probably 25 hours tops logged in it.

Not even sure what to call ME3, it was definitely a step backwards from ME2 tho. The only thing holding back ME3 is its ending. If the ending had matched the rest of the game (plus the previous 2 games) and had an ending with BIG choices like BioWare said it was gonna have, it would've been equal to or better than ME2.

What was that I heard in ME2, about the Rachni saying they'd "burn the darkness clean"? I saved the Rachni queen twice, so the Rachni could contribute to some indirect and underlying aspect of the game you never even see?

When I get to the Rachni queen on my current playthrough of ME1, I don't think I'll save her this time.

Modifié par Mole267, 24 avril 2012 - 05:48 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Mole267 wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was BIG. Plus it was more RPG-oriented. Remember in ME1, you got XP for KILLING stuff? It seems like in ME2 and 3, you just get XP has the game progresses. I remember in ME1, you got MORE XP if you killed difficult enemies on foot instead of in the Mako. ME2 streamlined it and cut away most of the RPG stuff (probably due to demand), and they made everything smaller and more easy to navigate. But they did such a great job, it didn't even matter. Everything in it was gold... The characters, the epic soundtrack, the missions, dialogue scenes and the choices you could make, and the whole story was just grand. Plus it was worth playing through numerous times, due to how many possible outcomes there were in the end. I have 260 hours logged in Steam for ME2. ME3, I haven't even finished my second playthrough. I've got probably 25 hours tops logged in it.

Not even sure what to call ME3, it was definitely a step backwards from ME2 tho. The only thing holding back ME3 is its ending. If the ending had matched the rest of the game (plus the previous 2 games) and had an ending with BIG choices like BioWare said it was gonna have, it would've been equal to or better than ME2.

What was that I heard in ME2, about the Rachni saying they'd "burn the darkness clean"? I saved the Rachni queen twice, so the Rachni could contribute to some indirect and underlying aspect of the game you never even see?

When I get to the Rachni queen on my current playthrough of ME1, I don't think I'll save her this time.

See I cant say honestly that ME3 was bad simply because of the ending, was the ending what i wanted? No, but the game was so much more than just the ending.

I got to see the myriad of outcomes from choices I made in 2 and 3 and experience epic endings and beginnings so to speak.

Those moments alone make ME3 worth it to me and one of the best games in the series as it allowed me to reunite with old friends and save or destroy species as I saw fit.

Bottom line it was awesome

However could it have been better and utilized past choices MORE? Heck yeah! But then so should have ME2 really... but thats another argument.

[Sidney]

Cyne wrote...

This is one of the worst aspects of ME3, coupled with the autodialog it makes the game feel very linear.

Linear isn't bad. I have no idea where "non-linear" because such a holy grail. If you are using a gridning simulator like TES and there is no story of course it is non-linear but most stories are linear for a reason. It works.

One of the worst aspects of ME1 was a terrible pacing. you are IN A HURRY to save the galaxy...but you piddle around looking for rocks and finding lost sisters and such. BG2, for example, at least provided a reason for your dilly dallying in the first chapter - you need money. ME2 also provided a reason - waiting for intel/the next attacks/debugging but ME1 there mindless exploration only serves to smack you in the face how NOT in a hurry you really are.