65 réponses à ce sujet

[elitecom]

simfamSP wrote...
I think you forget that Noveria is not a sidequest, but a main quest, so it shouldn't be compared to them at all.

So what was so great about Tuchanka's bomb disarming mission? The level for one, then the combat, and then the dramatic ending with the Primarch's son sacraficing himself. It's a very dramatic and tense mission because you feel things will go bad. And it's an option. Well, all side quests are an option so that's besides the point. It also goes with the Tuchanka main quest which I found great. The ME1 sidequests were distractions, and like I said, I found it hard to find any good reason to go there for my Shepards.

Actually I didn't forget that the garage pass quest is not a sidequest, nor did I compare it to any ME3 sidequest. Did I somehow make it seem like I did?

All right so the mission to disarm the bomb on Tuchanka is a good one because it is dramatic and tense. Very well, but many of the sidequests in Mass Effect 1 are dramatic too. UNC: Hostage is quite dramatic where you have to save a hostage from biotic extremists. Or how about the sidequests relating to Cerberus, I'd say they were quite dramatic. The same goes for UNC: Major Kyle or UNC:Geth Incursion. I could go on but I think I've made my point. 


 

 

[Tokei-ihto]

simfamSP wrote...

UNC: Hostage is quite dramatic where you have to save a hostage from biotic extremists. Or how about the sidequests relating to Cerberus, I'd say they were quite dramatic. The same goes for UNC: Major Kyle or UNC:Geth Incursion. I could go on but I think I've made my point.

They are; in context. But as I've said, the presentation isn't all up there with 2 or 3. It's hard to feel that way when you're given a level (which we've seen before) and a bunch on enemies to kill and *that's it.* Of course, my previous comment on context works vice versa; all that bomb in Tuchanka was is the same 'in context:' a level and a bunch of enemies to kill.

Yet, the lack of dialogue, atmosphere, unique enviroments and all makes it feel bare, as if only the core were there. Imagine this: An Elder Scrolls map with nothing but trees and rocks. Sure it's good, but there is a lot missing that makes it *great.*

Completely agree. I've just finished Bringing Down The Sky again (doing another trilogy playthrough), which, execution-wise, is already a step above the usual UNC side missions - and I couldn't stop thinking how much better the whole thing would be if it wouldn't use the same generic buildings with the exact same layout, strung together via the same repetitive Mako sections and the same underlying game mechanics, all staged with the same lack of excitement and emotional involvement that defined every other single ME1 quest.

'Same' being the keyword here, by the way.
ME1 in many aspects to me could be defined by "quantity over quality.

Modifié par Tokei-ihto, 14 janvier 2013 - 02:14 .

[Tokei-ihto]

Also, I rather take a clevery designed  linear level that provides a thrilling ride over a non-linear one that features occasionally two ways through what still is essentially a Schlauchlevel* but has lots of tedious backtracking and doesn't really provide an exciting alternative gaming experience.

*If there's an equivalent English term for it than I'm not aware of it. Basically a level of narrowly confined, tube-like space.

[DiegoRaphael]

I also felt ME3 was way more linear than the previous 2 games.

It may be needed to show the urgency of the war like some ppl said, but add that to conversations without our participation that will always occur on the same way, and when available, less option to choose from, horrible sidequests, and an ending below expectation, it kills all the replay value for me.

It could have let's us choose which conflict to solve first, but no, is one lvl after the other... If it wasnt for the Citadel, one could easily call it Gear of Effect...

Modifié par DiegoRaphael, 14 janvier 2013 - 02:49 .

[Endurium]

I think the insanely long cutscenes in ME3 contribute to a sense of linearity, or being railroaded. I often sit back wondering when I'll next be able to play the game.

Also was kinda pissed when I didn't get to tour the updated Normandy until after leaving the Citadel.

ME3 reinforces my view that Bioware is on course toward producing games that are little more than interactive movies.

[simonrana]

Endurium wrote...
I think the insanely long cutscenes in ME3 contribute to a sense of linearity, or being railroaded. I often sit back wondering when I'll next be able to play the game.

I totally agree. This thread seems to have spent a long time analysing whether the game is "factually" more linear than the others but the most important point is that the game actually feels linear compared to the others. The stricter ordering of missions and the constant and lengthy cutscenes with zero player input all create a sense of linearity that the last two games didn't have.

Modifié par simonrana, 14 janvier 2013 - 10:50 .

[ZeCollectorDestroya]

Return gameplay mechanics, choices and exploration to ME1 = HAVE MY LEFT TESTICLE AND MY LEGS!

[Sanunes]

Its funny, besides choosing the order of the primary missions in ME1 I felt the game felt more linear, because there was really wasn't anything to the game besides the six primary missions and when completing those they felt just as linear as any mission in ME2 or ME3. ME2 to me felt far more linear then what ME3 offered and that is because how the missions are unlock. I blame the amount of how linear the mission choice is because they had to break the 360 version into two disks, so they have to lock content to Disk 1 and Disk 2.

Unless a game is designed to be a sandbox style game I really think its going to feel linear, at least to me.

Modifié par Sanunes, 14 janvier 2013 - 02:30 .

[Grubas]

simfamSP wrote...

Grubas wrote...
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.

I would feel the same way if I wasn't so emotionally involved with the franchise as a whole. I also think that the game could have done a lot with Priority Earth. So much potential was wasted there. Every plot-hole; every inconsistency; every thing that bugged me would have been wiped of my mind if they nailed it with Earth.

Btw, do you think if they nailed Earth (and ending) as they should have, ME3 would have deserved a 'mediocre' at best?

A final mission taking our warassets into account and allowing us to make real missionrelevant decisions would make this game a favorite.

See the draft for an example what could have been.
 

Modifié par Grubas, 14 janvier 2013 - 06:30 .

[elitecom]

simfamSP wrote...They are; in context. But as I've said, the presentation isn't all up there with 2 or 3. It's hard to feel that way when you're given a level (which we've seen before) and a bunch on enemies to kill and *that's it.* Of course, my previous comment on context works vice versa; all that bomb in Tuchanka was is the same 'in context:' a level and a bunch of enemies to kill.

Yet, the lack of dialogue, atmosphere, unique enviroments and all makes it feel bare, as if only the core were there. Imagine this: An Elder Scrolls map with nothing but trees and rocks. Sure it's good, but there is a lot missing that makes it *great.*

I'd say the ME1 sidequests definitely had atmosphere, just look up in the sky on those many barren worlds and look at the planets or stars. And they also had their share of dialogue. But with regards to dialogue ME2's sidequests rarely had any dialogue at all. And while ME3's sidequests like the missions on Tuchanka had dialogue, how much of that dialogue was really meaningful? Now correct me if I'm wrong here(it's after all been about 8 months since I last played the game) but most of the dialogue is just auto-dialogue. Sure you may have a chance to actually use the dialogue wheel once or twice but it's not often. On the N7 missions there's no dialogue whatsoever. Granted some ME1 sidequests like Geth Incursion didn't have much dialogue either but many others did.

Anyway my point is that auto-dialogue isn't very engaging and when you have a weak story to boot, the sidequest isn't all that engaging in itself. This is definitely one of ME1's trumpcards since if there is a conversation you'll have something to do.  

[Yuqi]

It's still not as bad as FF13

[wright1978]

Endurium wrote...

I think the insanely long cutscenes in ME3 contribute to a sense of linearity, or being railroaded. I often sit back wondering when I'll next be able to play the game.

Also was kinda pissed when I didn't get to tour the updated Normandy until after leaving the Citadel.

ME3 reinforces my view that Bioware is on course toward producing games that are little more than interactive movies.

Very much my worry.

[Tokei-ihto]

elitecom wrote...
Anyway my point is that auto-dialogue isn't very engaging and when you have a weak story to boot, the sidequest isn't all that engaging in itself. This is definitely one of ME1's trumpcards since if there is a conversation you'll have something to do.

Whenever someone says that ME1 plot was its trumpcard, implicating that the writing was better than in the next two installments, a little something in me dies. This in this community unfortunately prevalent notion only goes to show that people have either little to no knowledge of story writing or an extremely narrow-minded and shallow preconception of it (Joseph Campell, anyone?). ME1's story is generic, derivative and implausible. It forgoes consistent character motivation that drives the narrative in a believable way to deliver the for a Bioware game at that point in time apparently obligatory twist, relies heavily on expository dumps to make sense of the poorly-constructed and inadequately paced plot (but, in fact, only help reveal all the flaws and plot holes that plague it). But hey, no one is bothered by weak writing as long as it indulges the players immature needs for superficial gimmickry and razzle-dazzle.

Regarding the dialogue in  ME1: This is nothing more than a series of expostional speeches strung together by Shepard's inquiries that make him appear like a curious child. "Oh, tell me about your culture and stuff that I, as a commanding officer of a military spaceship, actually should be familiar with in the first place but since I'm an avatar for the player I have to ask because there totally is no other way in a visual medium to convey information than through long-winded history lession and the retelling of tedious family stories." Never mind that, to make matters worse, the whole thing is executed in the most visually bland, boring way imaginable.
This is neither an engaging nor particular intersting method of providing background knowledge to the player. Also, lazy.

Also, I sincerly hope people are aware that the middle answer option in ME1 dialogue wheel in the majority of cases was literally the same as the Paragon/Renegade one. There are even instances where all three (!) answers seem to prompt the very same response. Yeah, that's called illusion of choice. And I'm not even going to further elaborate on the incredibly annoying inconsistencies in how Paragon/Renegade (especially the latter) option seemed to be definied in ME1.

And while the auto-dialogue in ME3 might take some player agency away it definitively helps in making for far more believable, natural flowing conversation. Now Shepard just automatically follows his initial inquiry with a further question instead of the player pushing a button to do so. The actual content is the same, only the presentation feels far more organic now.

And lastly, the auto-dialogue during missions helps:
a) to further flesh out your companions in terms of characterization
adds atmosphere and a sense of reality to the proceedings
c) is almost always genuinely funny and appropriate to the situation

[Frostmourne86]

Tokei-ihto wrote...

elitecom wrote...
Anyway my point is that auto-dialogue isn't very engaging and when you have a weak story to boot, the sidequest isn't all that engaging in itself. This is definitely one of ME1's trumpcards since if there is a conversation you'll have something to do.

Whenever someone says that ME1 plot was its trumpcard, implicating that the writing was better than in the next two installments, a little something in me dies. This in this community unfortunately prevalent notion only goes to show that people have either little to no knowledge of story writing or an extremely narrow-minded and shallow preconception of it (Joseph Campell, anyone?). ME1's story is generic, derivative and implausible. It forgoes consistent character motivation that drives the narrative in a believable way to deliver the for a Bioware game at that point in time apparently obligatory twist, relies heavily on expository dumps to make sense of the poorly-constructed and inadequately paced plot (but, in fact, only help reveal all the flaws and plot holes that plague it). But hey, no one is bothered by weak writing as long as it indulges the players immature needs for superficial gimmickry and razzle-dazzle.

Regarding the dialogue in  ME1: This is nothing more than a series of expostional speeches strung together by Shepard's inquiries that make him appear like a curious child. "Oh, tell me about your culture and stuff that I, as a commanding officer of a military spaceship, actually should be familiar with in the first place but since I'm an avatar for the player I have to ask because there totally is no other way in a visual medium to convey information than through long-winded history lession and the retelling of tedious family stories." Never mind that, to make matters worse, the whole thing is executed in the most visually bland, boring way imaginable.
This is neither an engaging nor particular intersting method of providing background knowledge to the player. Also, lazy.

Also, I sincerly hope people are aware that the middle answer option in ME1 dialogue wheel in the majority of cases was literally the same as the Paragon/Renegade one. There are even instances where all three (!) answers seem to prompt the very same response. Yeah, that's called illusion of choice. And I'm not even going to further elaborate on the incredibly annoying inconsistencies in how Paragon/Renegade (especially the latter) option seemed to be definied in ME1.

And while the auto-dialogue in ME3 might take some player agency away it definitively helps in making for far more believable, natural flowing conversation. Now Shepard just automatically follows his initial inquiry with a further question instead of the player pushing a button to do so. The actual content is the same, only the presentation feels far more organic now.

And lastly, the auto-dialogue during missions helps:
a) to further flesh out your companions in terms of characterization
adds atmosphere and a sense of reality to the proceedings
c) is almost always genuinely funny and appropriate to the situation

Thank you for saying this.  I've been playing ME 1 since I got it for the 360 in 2008, and I now I can't bring myself to really play it for the story because of all the bugs and holes that weren't acccounted for.  Plus, it's sad that Bioware usually leaves the real-world building (the hypocrasy, asanine characters) to the later installments - ME2 and 3 really added to the immersive feel of their galaxy, in my opinion.