65 réponses à ce sujet

[Gibb_Shepard]

 This game. Playing ME2 again after a long ME hiatus has shown me just how goddam linear ME3 is. Everything is on rails. The mission order, the dialogue, the character acquisition order. That, imo, is the biggest mistake this game made. I would have enjoyed it more, and would look forward to replaying it more, if there was some form of freedom to the game. This is definitely something that needs to be prominent in future ME games; if Bioware does choose to do another ME game in the vein of the trilogy.

But out of curiosity, did anyone here prefer the fact that ME3 was more linear than it's predecessor? 

[Mr.House]

ME2 was not linear?

[Savber100]

Mr.House wrote...

ME2 was not linear?

Well compared to Bioware games, it was pretty non-linear. 

But if we're defining it by cRPGs like Planescape and The Witcher 2... Yeah, not even close.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Mr.House wrote...

ME2 was not linear?

The post is about ME, not Fallout.

[thehomeworld]

ME2 was more linear then ME3 but it was linear compared to ME

[simonrana]

I agree with the OP. ME2 was quite linear in some ways, but ME3 is linear in almost every way. There's just so few places where you decide what to do next, or at least that's how it felt to me.

Even with the small things. For example in the past when a game would give you something to do like "go talk to X" at the far side of the room I'd sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be slicker to just make it happen automatically. In this game that actually happened and it turns out I didn't like it one bit!

EDIT: For the record though I don't blame them for trying this out though, like I said I too "thought" it would be a good idea before it actually happened.

Modifié par simonrana, 11 janvier 2013 - 11:15 .

[JamesFaith]

I have no problem with it.

We are in war with stronger enemy and in such war you more react on enemy's move then do what you want.

[SnapJackalPop]

It was linear but I think that was a result of trying to maintain a sense of urgency.

[White_Jedi]

The game is linear in that you don't have the hub world diversity of ME1 or ME2. In some way's it reminds me of DA2, although you can leave the Citadel for longer than you can leave Kirkwall. Outside of some of the side missions it's more confined, but that feels like a writing decision to keep tighter control of the story. If it's a drawback from a fan's perspective it must be an advantage from Bioware's point of view, and I doubt it's the most complained about part of the game by any stretch of the imagination.

[Grubas]

simfamSP wrote...

It was, and I'm thankful of it. You know how hard it was to roleplay in ME1? There's a 'race against time' and you have 10000 side quests to do. I've always gone for the "Shepard needs his team prepped, so this is good training" motive, but still...

The sidequests are optional and have been replaced by fetchquests. 
Now even those who did like sidequest skip them. What an improvement.

ME3 is as linear as a ME game can be.
While exploring Omega, Ilum or simply looking for minerals, there was still content you didnt find on your playthrough. ME3 simply dosnt have this hidden content. Its as strightforward as it gets. And its unnecessary so, because there is no reason why you should start your recruitmentmission with Garrus, and not with Tali. 

Modifié par Grubas, 11 janvier 2013 - 04:32 .

[Cuttlebone]

JamesFaith wrote...

I have no problem with it.

We are in war with stronger enemy and in such war you more react on enemy's move then do what you want.

What a nice excuse you got there.

[Yate]

Cuttlebone wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

I have no problem with it.

We are in war with stronger enemy and in such war you more react on enemy's move then do what you want.

What a nice excuse you got there.

It really is.

Having unlimited time and freedom to do what you want would've killed the atmosphere for me.

ME3 needed to have that "Race Against Time" feel for real. It's different from 1 and 2, but it needed to be different.

[Savehtepenguin]

I don't know...I personally felt more inclined to roam about in me3 than in 2. Stuff like wandering the citadel and listening to the ambient conversation of certain NPCs which took place over several visits. Then, for example, finding it would lead to some form of mini mission or request at the spectre terminal. For me personally, it felt like a nice little touch, and certainly gave incentive to explore. While we're at it, I'd also like to throw From Ashes into the mix and point out just how fleshed out Javik felt when compared to say, Kasumi or Zaeed of ME2 (character-wise).

These sorts of things break linearity without killing pacing.

[Yate]

simfamSP wrote...

Grubas wrote...

simfamSP wrote...

It was, and I'm thankful of it. You know how hard it was to roleplay in ME1? There's a 'race against time' and you have 10000 side quests to do. I've always gone for the "Shepard needs his team prepped, so this is good training" motive, but still...

The sidequests are optional and have been replaced by fetchquests. 
Now even those who did like sidequest skip them. What an improvement.

ME3 is as linear as a ME game can be.
While exploring Omega, Ilum or simply looking for minerals, there was still content you didnt find on your playthrough. ME3 simply dosnt have this hidden content. Its as strightforward as it gets. And its unnecessary so, because there is no reason why you should start your recruitmentmission with Garrus, and not with Tali. 

Optional, yes. But they are still give. I said it was a hard time because conflict on interest always arises. Plus, the side quests in ME1? They were pathetic. ME2 really outdid itself with them, plus, there is no urgency, no feeling of taxation for going on loyality missions, making roleplaying a hell of a lot easier on you.

ME3's fetch quests were necessary to gain those EMS. No way could BioWare have had the time to do fully fleshed out side quests. Besides, the main missions were much larger than those in ME2. ME2 had lots of them, but they were smaller. ME3 had less of them, but they were larger. Have you seen the 'average time' threads on here? ME2 and ME3 get roughly around the same time.

But ME1... man, those sidequests were just horrible xD. Next run-through? Not doing them again.

Yeah, most people view ME1's sidequests through nostalgia glasses.

it was nice to hang out on the various worlds, just drive around aimlessly.

but most of the quests had bad VA, predictable plots, repetitive environments, and samey combat.

ME2 really shook up the gameplay, too bad there weren't more sidequests in that

ME3 wasn't as good as ME2, but at least all the missions really made sense in the grand scheme of things instead of just being OH SHEPARD RANDOMLY FIGHTS SOME RANDOM BOSS DUDE

[elitecom]

Yate wrote...
Yeah, most people view ME1's sidequests through nostalgia glasses.

but most of the quests had bad VA, predictable plots, repetitive environments, and samey combat.

ME2 really shook up the gameplay, too bad there weren't more sidequests in that

So you accuse ME1's sidequests for having predictable plots, repetitive environments, and the same combat while you adore ME2's corridors, which always have the same outcome, that is walk at the end of the corridor and you'll fight bad guy X or discover that Y died, and the same old close quarter combat.

Who is really viewing things through nostalgia glasses here?

[RukiaKuchki]

I totally agree with a lot of the comments above - the increased degree of linearity in ME3 was needed, it was a desperate race against time and your mission was much more important than driving around a cut and paste rocky planet to find the hideout of some red sand pirate gang. Those things just don't matter anymore. If you were able to wander off from the main quest for 10 hours, it totally diminishes that sense of urgency and the threat posed by the Reapers as they systematically take over each star system. To me, that is one failure of ME1 (I too think there is a degree of rose-tinted nostalgia for ME1, it was amazing for its time, but it was far from perfect) where you are able to completely disregard the main story thread for hours. They fixed this in ME2 by the Illusive Man 'interrupts' where you are forced to progress the story and keep up the momentum. I liked that a lot.

Modifié par RukiaKuchki, 11 janvier 2013 - 05:59 .

[elitecom]

I really think Mass Effect 1 got it right with its non-linear story progression, something which Bioware used to be proud of. So what's so good with the setup in Mass Effect 1? Not only does it stay true to the plot and the role which you as the player inherit, but it also allows for a great deal of freedom.
You are a Spectre and the mission is yours to go about and complete in the way you want to. If you want to rush through Therum, Feros, Noveria, and Virmire in order to have a sense of urgency, you can do that. If you want to complete the mission differently and take your time you can do that. In the end you are the Spectre and it is your mission. This is a good gameplay concept for a roleplaying game because it really allows you to roleplay.

What many of you who thinks that a sense of urgency is needed and that sidequests should be marginalised to their ME3 state argue for is a gameplay system which limits my freedom to complete the mission in the way I want to. In other words I have to play your version of how you would complete the mission, that is with a lot of urgency in mind. I don't like to have your way of playing the game forced upon me, just as I'm sure that you wouldn't like to be forced to play it my way. But I'm arguing for a gameplay system in which you have the freedom to choose, and that is the sign of a well designed roleplaying game.

[paul165]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

I totally agree with a lot of the comments above - the increased degree of linearity in ME3 was needed, it was a desperate race against time and your mission was much more important than driving around a cut and paste rocky planet to find the hideout of some red sand pirate gang. Those things just don't matter anymore. If you were able to wander off from the main quest for 10 hours, it totally diminishes that sense of urgency and the threat posed by the Reapers as they systematically take over each star system. To me, that is one failure of ME1 (I too think there is a degree of rose-tinted nostalgia for ME1, it was amazing for its time, but it was far from perfect) where you are able to completely disregard the main story thread for hours. They fixed this in ME2 by the Illusive Man 'interrupts' where you are forced to progress the story and keep up the momentum. I liked that a lot.

Yet somehow you had time to go look for heating components and power converters for a nightclub.....

Most BW games from BG2 onwards have the whole desperate race against time / overwhelming evil thing ME3 from memory is the only one that doesn't put random little side quests in to add to the atmosphere or break up the main plot.

It was to me an odd design choice especially given they effectively replaced them with fetch quests which given the EMS system they then effectively made compulsary.

[JamesFaith]

Yate wrote...

Cuttlebone wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

I have no problem with it.

We are in war with stronger enemy and in such war you more react on enemy's move then do what you want.

What a nice excuse you got there.

It really is.

Having unlimited time and freedom to do what you want would've killed the atmosphere for me.

ME3 needed to have that "Race Against Time" feel for real. It's different from 1 and 2, but it needed to be different.

Exactly.

ME1 and ME2 were exploration / investigation games.
ME3 is war game.

You can't use same approach to two different types of game.

[ZLurps]

I wonder if it's rather lack of surprise element than how linear the game is.

[Grubas]

Yate wrote...

Optional, yes. But they are still give. I said it was a hard time because conflict on interest always arises. Plus, the side quests in ME1? They were pathetic. ME2 really outdid itself with them, plus, there is no urgency, no feeling of taxation for going on loyality missions, making roleplaying a hell of a lot easier on you.

ME3's fetch quests were necessary to gain those EMS. No way could BioWare have had the time to do fully fleshed out side quests. Besides, the main missions were much larger than those in ME2. ME2 had lots of them, but they were smaller. ME3 had less of them, but they were larger. Have you seen the 'average time' threads on here? ME2 and ME3 get roughly around the same time.

But ME1... man, those sidequests were just horrible xD. Next run-through? Not doing them again.

Yeah, most people view ME1's sidequests through nostalgia glasses.
No nostalgia needed. Have the same opinion about ME1 since when i first finished it, February last year. And i can tell you not for the only time. 

it was nice to hang out on the various worlds, just drive around aimlessly.
but most of the quests had bad VA, predictable plots, repetitive environments, and samey combat.
predictable plots? Do you remember the decisions that were tacked on to Monastery mission? In ME1 more then one side mission had at least the same amount of decisions and consequences. Im talking about plain N7 missions having more impact then. Mentioning the MAKO alone is enough, to prove that the gameplay was more divers then ME3's corridor shooting and even more corridor shooting. You didnt even need to look for targets, as they are right infront of you.

ME2 really shook up the gameplay, too bad there weren't more sidequests in that
You mean, like a proper shooter. To me it wasnt necessary, having ammo, but it wasnt bad. It had definitely more sidequests then ME3. Not as many as ME1, but they all have been fun and divers. 

ME3 wasn't as good as ME2, but at least all the missions really made sense in the grand scheme of things instead of just being OH SHEPARD RANDOMLY FIGHTS SOME RANDOM BOSS DUDE
No. Instead you fight one random boss dude, Kai Leng. A random boss dude had more personality.. i can tell you that.
Thank you but fetching for warassets wasn't entertaining. Also you forget that random, and cheaply done, N7 missions were tacked on. 

All ME1 needs to appeal are revamped graphics, and twicked combat. Thats all it needs to show ME3 its place, as the weakest part of the trilogy. 

Modifié par Grubas, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:29 .

[Grubas]

simfamSP wrote...

Optional, yes. But they are still give. I said it was a hard time because conflict on interest always arises. Plus, the side quests in ME1? They were pathetic. ME2 really outdid itself with them, plus, there is no urgency, no feeling of taxation for going on loyality missions, making roleplaying a hell of a lot easier on you.

ME3's fetch quests were necessary to gain those EMS. No way could BioWare have had the time to do fully fleshed out side quests. Besides, the main missions were much larger than those in ME2. ME2 had lots of them, but they were smaller. ME3 had less of them, but they were larger. Have you seen the 'average time' threads on here? ME2 and ME3 get roughly around the same time.

But ME1... man, those sidequests were just horrible xD. Next run-through? Not doing them again.

The sidequests of ME1 were really alright. They needed more tweaking, but the framework was done so you could optionaly play them. Still better then random fetchquests.

On ME2 i agree. Really well done missions.

ME3 had larger missions? Maybe. But lesser polished. More "nothing happens here" zone and missed oportunitys like walking in the dark 2x and nothing happens, a pointless turret/tank sequence where you can shoot .. at a reaper. Or the turretsequence on priority:earth...
Endless corridor shooting. What expects me around the next corner? More Cerberus...
Or the husk, that tries to grab you through a halfopenddoor, except that when you come close to him, he makes no damage at all.
or so many more...
  
ME1 on the other hand had missions so big, integrated completely with entire hubworlds, all with their own subquests, shops, bossfights etc. , MAKO and Minigames.
It wouldnt hurt to add more diversity into ME3.
It wouldnt hurt to release ME3 in a state they released ME1. With the core plot and missions intact.   
 

Modifié par Grubas, 11 janvier 2013 - 09:51 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Savber100 wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

ME2 was not linear?

Well compared to Bioware games, it was pretty non-linear. 

But if we're defining it by cRPGs like Planescape and The Witcher 2... Yeah, not even close.

ME2 is incredibly linear just like Dragon Age is incredibly linear.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 11 janvier 2013 - 11:30 .