65 réponses à ce sujet

[wright1978]

Yeah wasn't a fan of the linear path of ME3 story. I can understand why they went for the go to point A and get Y, go to point B and get Z etc but i'd much preferred to have the player having more of an element of choice of when to go to various places and the timing of going their having consequences on war assets that could be recovered.

The other big area of linearisation was in terms of characterisation of Shep. Game seemed to try and ignore player's ME2 characterisation choices and just railroad a default generic characterisation on the player for large spells.

[Grubas]

simfamSP wrote...

Ok, I'm not *trying* to be dickish, but it might come across as it. But how long has it been since you played ME1?

For me, it was last week, and those side quests were rince and repeat 90% of the time. The only redeeming ones were the ones were you could talk your way out of (which were about 3 in number.)

Really, check the mission description on masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Assignments#Mass Effect . Many missions had variations added to it. It was more then just "talk your way out". Do you remember the mission with he monkeys, where you had drive around and check every monkey in search for an item he has stolen?  
Did you defuse the bomb, when you were trapped? The guy that was holding a scientist hostage? Or the Cerberus base, full with rachni, that you have to blow up, and escape in time?

I would rather say ME3 is rince and reapeat because of lack of former gamemechanics. All you can do is probe a planet or shoot some enemys to advance. Sometimes you need to hold a button to open a door, WOW!  

They were pretty minor scenes and didn't last long. But those are just two examples, so it doesn't really say much. More, please!

Ok the husk in priority:earth, that get stack in the door? He tries to grab you, but he cant actually harm you. He is just there--- to be shoot at. 
The Beamrun? Just press "forward button" to advance. Dont worry about the exploding vehicles, and dying soldiers around you,  YOU can not be harmed, no matter what. Or just lean back, because the entire Hammersquad gets replenished endlessly on their way towards destruction. 

What defines corridor shooting (for me) is the way the paths are clearly set out for you. No matter how wide a level is, it's still a corridor if you go from point A to B, which is what most of the ME series is.

But in ME1 you could actually get lost. Noveria had this complex level design, i needed a map to find Benezia. Tell me you get lost in ME3, i will laugh. Or find me a map with multiple paths, you wont.

The Citadel in ME1 is very overrated I've found. Though it is the largest citadel to date, it's no Baldur's Gate or Ankhatla. But I'm getting away from the point. Still I've got to give it to you: the Citadel quests in ME1 were the funnest sidequests in the game.

Dont forget the in-mission hub worlds. Noveria, you had to solve a couple of quests before they even let you out of the base. Again multiple ways to achieve this.
This multiple approaches have been scrapped from ME3 completely. 

The MAKO? I wasn't a big fan. It's fun and all but terribly executed. Also, 'exploration' involved random generated worlds with recycled bases. I would call it DA2. (I know you never mentioned exploration, but I get the feeling with the MAKO you also included that.)

I played the MAKO on PC, so i cant talk about consoleexperience. But on the PC you actually get used to it. 
Have you forgotten the Skyhighway on Feros? What was wrong with that? Or the Ilos mission? Both are exemplary why people miss the MAKO. 

The sidemissions were not that pleasing to the eye. I know. But we could engage a sandwurm here and there.

There was. The levels in ME3 were much more differentiated than in ME1, but less so than ME2.

ME3 had some levels that were really really good designed. But then again the quality deteriorated towards the end. Thessia is just a shadow of what it could have been. 

Modifié par Grubas, 12 janvier 2013 - 11:17 .

[Zuzu Mumu]

Mr.House wrote...

ME2 was not linear?

what universe are you from? ME3 is linear , me1 and 2 gave u complete control of the universe.
have you even played the games?

[Zuzu Mumu]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

 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? 

i completely agree with you , there is no freedom in ME3 and no matter what you do the end is exactly the same , which defies the whole purpose of ME in the first place. the way the game is done , where you don't have access to anything untill u finish x mission or y dialog makes the game look like a very bad track record , i would play ME1 and ME2 anytime happily simply because of the enormous freedom of choice you have and i could play the game 200 times and every time come out with a different ending , but ME3 ..no thank you , all ME3 succeeds in doing is to show you that it doesn't matter what you do in me 1 and me 2 , me3 will always end the same. makes the game non replayable for me. the story was nice , dialogs and voice acting also nice but the ending ruins it. if u ask me ME1 and ME2 are mass effect games. ME3 is a EA game product where ppl from me1 and 2 worked on , nothing more

[Forst1999]

With all the main and character quests they still had to do, there was little room to make side quests like in ME1&2. And I think it's good that ALL quests in the game are part of the war effort and there are no completly unconnected missions on the side. They are an old RPG trope, but in this game they would fit less than ever.
As for the order of main missions, I also prefer ME3's way. In most Bioware games, you have this big parts of the plot that are hardly connected to each other. They all have some connection to the main plot, but they aren't linked with each other. In ME3, you do mission 2 because of what happened in mission 1, and that leads to mission 3. I just think that is better story-telling and makes the single parts of the game not feel so disconnected.

[Selene Moonsong]

 The real difference ME 1 and 2 vs ME 3 is that the first two allow to pick and choose when to complete side-missions. 

ME 1 a little more than ME 2 in that you can choose when to do the priority missions. but no matter what missions you decide to do in what order, the game doesn't progress until you do the higher priority missions.

ME 1 has lots of exploration missions available, primarily because it is the first of the three games and much of the exploration is used to explain the various systems and introduce the player to the galaxy. Few have any kind of importance to the main plot and can be completed rather quickly. Even the quests for Wrex, Garrus, and Tali are quick go in, get what is needed, and get out; no different from any other fetch quest. The missions create an illusion of non-liniarity in areas that consist of reusing the same game system assets over an over again.

ME 2 allows you to do things pretty much in your choice of order. However, once certain points are reached, you are forced into certain specific missions at different times. 

ME 2 has limited exploration compared to ME 1 and did not make use of ground vehicles, but using shuttles instead. Unlike ME 1, ME 2 is more focused on team building and spent more time developing trust between team members and goes into more detail in that regard. Less exploration is needed, buy now, your character is well acquainted with most of the habitable systems.

ME 3 has similarities to both of the previous games in regards to when to do missions, but are forced a little more often along a specific paths at times. ME 3 is more about galactic politics and making alliances. You till have the freedom to pick and choose when and how to complete the various missions, but must complete certain mission to move the plot forward, no different from the first two games.

ME 3 still has some planet side missions and are handled similar to ME 2 via shuttle drops plus a simplified scanning system. Unlike the two previous games, the entire galaxy is under attack. Such an environment is hardly condusive to detailed ground searches of at least one planet in every system.

[Dr_Extrem]

Selene Moonsong wrote...

ME 3 has similarities to both of the previous games in regards to when to do missions, but are forced a little more often along a specific paths at times. ME 3 is more about galactic politics and making alliances. You till have the freedom to pick and choose when and how to complete the various missions, but must complete certain mission to move the plot forward, no different from the first two games. 

ME 3 still has some planet side missions and are handled similar to ME 2 via shuttle drops plus a simplified scanning system. Unlike the two previous games, the entire galaxy is under attack. Such an environment is hardly condusive to detailed ground searches of at least one planet in every system.

with the difference, that certain missions are only available, if you finish certain priority missions. every priority mission grants you access to a new n7 and/or side missions. the side/n7 missions in me3 are given out by the "salami-principle" - slice by slice.

this robs the player of the feeling to have freedom.

we are scanning the planets for additional assets - a short mission with a ground fight or small riddle, would have been nice for the "scan-quests".

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 12 janvier 2013 - 03:08 .

[deatharmonic]

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.

I agree that a sense of urgency was needed, but, I disagree vehemently with the argument that this sense should have been achieved via increased linearity. I would have prefered it if with each mission (side quest) you do the reapers make another move, take another planet, do more damage to your allies. So you have to decide carefully about who to help and whether you can risk it because times-a-wastin'. Ultimately in ME3 you can do every side quest, spend A LOT of time searching the galaxy during those fetch quests and actually be better off for it, so does linearity promote a sense of urgency? I'd argue no. I can see what BW tried to do but I feel there are better alternatives.

[99DP1982]

ME3 - very linear corridor action game melded with interactive squad mates and few story choices. Very well made party banters and off mission dialogs and interactions between squad, very nice touch. Urgency seems to be forced. Recruitment order is fully linear. N7 missions bland reuse of Multiplayer horde mode vs cerberus troops. Fully combat oriented. Some level of gear customization. No customization for outfit for companions, silly breather masks in hazardous areas!

ME2 - fairly linear missions set up in a corridor action gameplay with interactive squad mates. There seems to be a lot of choices that should impact things in the ME3 (that eventually not happen). It breaks down into three sets of selectable mission orders. No matter what you do your recruitment is phased. You cannot get Tali recruitment before a certain plot mission appears. Urgency is not forced, but it's visible. Unless you "cheese" a playthrough you will have to either skip some loyalty missions or allow some regular Normandy staff to die. N7 missions fairly diverse, some chained into a specific order. There are no non-combat skill uses, but there are some minigames - bypassing, hacking. Gear customization almost non-existent. No customization for outfit for companions, silly breather masks in hazardous areas!

ME - recruitment order is fairly linear, main missions set up in a corridor action game - interactive squad mates. Interactive squadmates, they have their own stories and missions, which are completely optional. Urgency seems to be artificial. The main missions order is almost free to chose from a defined preset of missions. Sidequests (lets call them N7s) re-use interiors, but exteriors are unique. Not so good Mako controls and poor enemy AI on interior fights (they just try to run to you). There are also non-combat uses for some skills. Broad inventory with customization options - very nice feature. Outfit on you and your companions is what you place on them. Full helmets in hazardous areas! (good thing!)

To be honest all of the ME games have one thing in common - the combat is most of the time a "corridor shooter". The progression is visible in the area of combat mechanics from ME to ME3. The other aspect that improved is the re-activity among the squad members - first we had elevators, in ME2 there were few scripted events based on loyalty missions and on mission banters, and in ME3 we had full interactions, up to even a romance

In none of the games recruitment was non-linear. The most linear though was the one in ME3 - sadly. The sidequests also suffered. The mix between ME and ME2 would be best instead of arena shootouts with cerberus of ME3. Sadly they dropped any concept of vehicle control instead of improving upon Mako/Hammerhead. Sadly they also dropped any kind of non-combat activities... not to mention the drop of non-combat skills in full. The customization options also went down the path from ME and the concept of fixed armor type on a companion is just bad, not to mention breather masks...

Back on topic - I agree that ME3 is the most linear game of the three. The feeling of urgency should be handled like in ME2. It's there and it affects some of the assets you gathered (for example).

I'd love to see a separate animated sequences for major assets as well as parts of missions where your other team members help the troops to move to positions. It feels odd that a suicide mission from ME2 gets more detail and footage of your squad than the most important mission in the war with the Reapers. I'd love some other sidequets than pinging a planet or SP horde mode vs Cerberus on MP maps...

Oh well I can only sum up, that such a great potential that ME3 had just went down the drain together with my blind trust in quality of Bioware games and my pre-orders...

The ME series was always fairly linear, as most quality story telling RPGs have to be (it's not a sandbox with poor story and NPCs like some other company's games), but ME3 was WAY TOO LINEAR.

[Yate]

Bah, the Mako's fine. Just gotta know how to handle her.

[elitecom]

simfamSP wrote...
 But disarming a bomb feels bigger than going into three laboratories on the moon and doing the same crap three times over.

And these couple of quests were just one big one going from point to point. Getting to the garage had two options if I recall, and neither of them were overall complex; but I suppose that the point isn't that. It's just that they were *there.*

I'd advice you togo to the Agebinium in the Amazon System if you want to disarm a bomb.
 
Actually getting to the garage is a bit more complex than just two choices.

You can tell Anoleis about Opold asking you to smuggle a package for him to obtain a garage pass.

You can help Lorik Qui'in obtain evidence in his office about Anoleis activities and get his garage pass.
 
You can help Lorik Qui'in and then help Gianna by making Qui'in confess before the executive board.

You can agree to help Gianna and then go to Anoleis and tell him of her intentions to bring him down.

You can give Anoleis the evidence against him.

You can tell Anoleis that you got evidence concerning his activities to extort him.

I'm still not sure whether I covered all the possibilities that one can go about to obtain the garage pass and as you can see it's a lot more complex than just "two" choices. It's really nothing short of politics.

[Dr_Extrem]

Yate wrote...

Bah, the Mako's fine. Just gotta know how to handle her.

i have to agree ...


i
agree
with
yate ..

*head explodes*

[DarthLaxian]

Mr.House wrote...

ME2 was not linear?

not really - it had certain things that happened (like fighting through the cerberus station at the start and then going to that colony, but after that you had freedome (yes there were certain things you had to do, but you were free in what order you did them, like with the recruiting missions and the loyalty ones) - yes certain other things were linear, like having the collectors take your crew or having to go to the dead reaper etc. but all in all you had much freedom (not like in skyrim, but enough, skyrim was almost "too free"))

greetings LAX
ps: yes ME3 felt as linear as a call of duty game (not that these are as bad as everybody says) and it just didn't fit the franchise (add this to all the other blunders of that game and you get nicely looking crap (hell i liked ME3, till i compared it to its predecessor and ME1))

[Sinophile]

Just spent about ten minutes skimming this topic, and to me, this is what has happened with the ME series in terms of linearity:
ME1 was more rpg than shooter. It felt very clunky compared to it's successors, especially with the time it took to level your character, and the sheer amount of junk you got.
ME2 was made after Bioware got bought by EA, who decided to take ME into a more action-oriented game, The nice thing about ME2 was that I didn't need to do the loyalty/acquirement issues in any particular order, and some I could skip altogether.
ME3 was little more than a cash cow, and was made as quickly as possible. Look at Skyrim, it is still $40-60 most retail outlets, as compared to ME3, released 4 months later, which sells for about one-third that.

[elitecom]

simfamSP wrote...
I've done that mission. Not nearly as good Tuchanka. ME1's sidequests are sub-par at best. Everything about them just feel lackluster.

As for Noveria. I never said there were 'two choices.' I said two options. Which was a huge generalization on my part. Either help Parsini or Anoleus. I forgot our Turian friend also. So that boils down to three options.

So what's so better with ME3's sidequests, I hardly found the fetchquests to be enjoyable.  All of ME1's collection quests had some story behind, which made them enjoyable to do. In ME3 it's just: "find me a tablet and I'll give you some war assets". And all the N7 missions were just playing the multiplayer missions in singleplayer.

So in Noveria you have three people you can choose to help, but you have a lot of ways to go about helping them. I think we should definitely give ME1 the credit here for offering us such a wide variety of ways to obtain a garage pass.

[Grubas]

simfamSP wrote...

Fair enough, I see your point. But I was heading towards the way the mission is presented. The goal and how it was established. For example: disarming the bomb at Tuchanka or saving the Admiral at Rannoch. Granted, those side quests used fairly similar routes, and they were linear, but the diversity of the goals is what made them grander (in my opinion.)

Diversity of goals, i give you that, but still you finish them by blowing someones head off. Its a difference whether you defend someone disarming a bomb, or get a challenging Minigame instead. because a writer will always find a reason why you have to shoot even more goons. 

ME3's mission had variety, and were overall better presented. But only because player interaction was heavily rigged.
Limiting Player interaction give the writer more power to force his story, similar to a book or a movie. 

We really really had, have, and will have enough of this kind of games. Its mediocrity.

Though ME1 had more of these, their representation and grandeur lacked compared to both ME2 and 3. They felt the same; even with the different mechanics used to resolve them. Still, objectively, it doesn't mean its a bad thing at all. But disarming a bomb feels bigger than going into three laboratories on the moon and doing the same crap three times over. (VI mission on Luna Base... at least you could see Earth, that was very cool. Btw, can't you find the moon landing site there? I never bothered much with the Mako to look for it.)

Yes i found it.
 If you find something strange in ME3, chances are its plotrelevant and you were mend to find it.

Ok the husk in priority:earth, that get stack in the door? He tries to grab you, but he cant actually harm you. He is just there--- to be shoot at.
The Beamrun? Just press "forward button" to advance. Dont worry about the exploding vehicles, and dying soldiers around you, YOU can not be harmed, no matter what. Or just lean back, because the entire Hammersquad gets replenished endlessly on their way towards destruction.

They were too minor and too inconsistent to ever grab my attention. And I thought the beam run was pretty exhilarating. Much better than quick time events, but not much worse.

Only first time. Im more the player type and things like this make me ask "why am i needed at all? This games almost plays itself."

But in ME1 you could actually get lost. Noveria had this complex level design, i needed a map to find Benezia. Tell me you get lost in ME3, i will laugh. Or find me a map with multiple paths, you wont.

Fine, you're right there. I won't argue on ME1's linearity, especially on Feros and Noveria. I'd be stupid or arrogant to do so, and I'm not too much on the latter to do that. But neither were they the giant Elder Scrolls mega hubs people make them out to be. All in all, ME1's shooter to explorer ration isn't leaning that far to the latter side.

I never playd elder scrolls. But it outdoes ME3 in another gameplayimportant department. Which is a miracle for a 5 year old game. 

Dont forget the in-mission hub worlds. Noveria, you had to solve a couple of quests before they even let you out of the base. Again multiple ways to achieve this.
This multiple approaches have been scrapped from ME3 completely.

Not entirely. You had lots of options in Rannoch and Tuchanka. You also had two with the Rachni. And as for companions, ME3 is one of the most choice heavy games in the series concerning them. You have a choice to kill Legion; Mordin; Kaiden; Wrex... there's more stuff than people give ME3 credit for. But I think that comes with the bad reputation which stemmed through the ending.

This are undeniably the strongest sides of ME3. But they come at a price.
To me this game was about the build-up towards the ending. I would have gladly overlooked everything missing and streamlined and all the faults... I know bw is just a company that needs to look for money, so they probably saved the best things towarsd the end. And the conclusion would be my favorite verdict. So.. 
Its a lackluster game. Mediocre. 

[jedidotflow]

The Mass Effect Trilogy was never intended to be an open world game so I don't understand why people are whining about it being linear.

[deatharmonic]

jedi.flow wrote...

The Mass Effect Trilogy was never intended to be an open world game so I don't understand why people are whining about it being linear.

You really should read what people write before you write them off as whining. No one is saying it should be open world.

[Raizo]

ME1 gave us to much freedom and ME3 did not give us enough of it, it was too linear. I loved the way ME2 flowed, the way it drip fed it's content, the way the galaxy slowly opened up to us to explore it. In the future I hope that Bioware emulates ME2 mission structure as opposed to the way they did things in ME1 and ME3.