225 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Redbelle wrote...

Problems..... for new players and old alike.

It wasn't Mass Effect, it was mass effect lite. Here comes the explanation.

The guy's at BW had to pack a whole lot of stuff into that game which would round off the trilogy. And curiously it seem's to me to be a case of, to much to do, which resulted in cutting thing's the fan's had come to expect. Gameplay wise it had devolved into just a cover shooter with a unique, well developed story line predating the 3rd game.

The problem with cutting gameplay element's, whether fan's call for cut's or development cycle's demand them, is that usually nothing goes into replace what has been removed. Except in this case the cut's had been replaced with fetch quest's. Except the fetch quest's felt alien to ME. ME has rich story's of personal contact and the ability to persue a line of questioning, pat the guy on the head or kick him in the goolie's. ME's fetch quest's gave us anoymous...... I wouldn't even call them people, let's just call them quest giver's, in substiute of a well rounded and thought out personality to interogate. A "Why do you need the pillar's of wisdom"! dialogue choice would have been better than evesdropping on a conversation and picking up a quest that way.

I ran through the citadel without pause and picked up quest's I had no idea why they appeared. I never stopped to listen to teh conversation's. That's a pretty bad way to give out a quest.

The autodialogue problem is not actually the auto dialogue problem. It's a lack of dialogue choice problem, or point's in a conversation where a decision must be made, but the writer's make it for us.

Take EDI for example. Assualt the Cerberus base and EDI come's along with no say from the player to agree or disagree. WE later learn that EDI is instrumental in the squad not getting spaced.

This I feel is a failure of the developer's to understand the point of the game. The assualt on the cerberus base was not a loyalty mission-esque mission. The point of the game is to allow the player to choose the course of action. By feeding us down a path we have no choice in going down, and more importantly, by giving the gamer no say in this decision, the premise of player decision making is damaged. Granted, EDI has alot of insight into the Cerberus base which as a story player I enjoy. But by forcing me to take her, instead of giving me a huge hint that this character will be extremely useful and really really really ought to go...... I feel annoyed that the game mechanic's that allow player's to choose were crippled in that instance, and other instances..... and that the writing had to work to justify the taking the choice out of the player's hands.

Another problem (last one for now). Combat at the start of the game. Or the orienation for getting off earth to the Normandy. They gave us a gun to fast.

Give a guy a gun and they develop tunnel vision. Their eye movement's and mouse control alter from what they do when they are walking or running.The aiming reticle become's a focal point that keep's the eye locked on that point. Compare this to ME2's opening where you had no gun and had to space walk through a blown to hell Normandy where bulk heads had been ripped away to reveal star's and a nearby planet. No gun or pistol there to distract us from the spectacle of what was happening. The Reaper invasion of Eath was a major event. And rather than give us a gun at the start of it. I think they should have coreographed event's to show what a Reaper invasion could do to a city, and then give Shepard a gun after he met the vent boy. Basically, the start of the game should not have tried to orientate player's to quickly to the game control's when story orientation need to occur at the same time to nail home the horrer and helplessness of what the Reaper's were doing to Earth at the time.

Edit : Actually, I forgot about the Planet Scanning quests

99% Agree with you. See below

Modifié par MegaIllusiveMan, 29 avril 2013 - 04:06 .

[Bleachrude]

Redbelle is COMPLETELY wrong about the fetch quests.

The Fetch quests ("Search and rescue") were a replacement for the "Planet scanning" minigame of the previous game....each ME game has some sort of mini-game and ME3 simply incorporated the use of fetch quest with the mini-game. I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't see this as an improvement given the nature of the mini-games from before.

Instead of getting a little bit of loot, the mini-game was more involved in that it utilized a way to increase your effect on the main-game in a noticeable way and provided a bit of lore at the same time.

People seem to think (WRONGLY I mgiht add) that the smaller quests would be turned into full-on missions but that's not what side missions were like in the previous games..you would get a random collection of buildings/boxes that look the same with a random assortment of troops to shoot through.

One thing that gets ignored is the difference is that ME3 made it's optional missions much more integral/interesting to the actual storyline.

For example, Grissom is a SIDE mission..it's completely optional to do and completely blows any of the optional quests from the previous games out of the water...Ex-cerberus scientists and the monastery are SIDE missions.

Yet each of these side/optional missions have more dialogue/more interaction with the characters on the squad AND at the area than any side mission (including ME2's loyalty missions.

Even the smaller N7 missions were heads and shoulders above the selfsame optional missions from before in that each environment had an unique look and was not simply rearranged boxes and prefav buildings

Simply look at the N7 missions in ME3 and look at the UNC missions of ME1 or the N7 missions from ME2

(And my belief is this is from feedback from players complaining about how the side-missions in previous games seemed to exist no more than to pad the length of the game. Admit it...BSN loudly complained about how these missions were "lazy work" given their design)

Modifié par Bleachrude, 29 avril 2013 - 01:10 .

[Bleachrude]

(ignore--double post)

Modifié par Bleachrude, 29 avril 2013 - 01:10 .

[chemiclord]

Bleachrude wrote...

Redbelle is COMPLETELY wrong about the fetch quests.

The Fetch quests ("Search and rescue") were a replacement for the "Planet scanning" minigame of the previous game....each ME game has some sort of mini-game and ME3 simply incorporated the use of fetch quest with the mini-game. I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't see this as an improvement given the nature of the mini-games from before.

Instead of getting a little bit of loot, the mini-game was more involved in that it utilized a way to increase your effect on the main-game in a noticeable way and provided a bit of lore at the same time.

People seem to think (WRONGLY I mgiht add) that the smaller quests would be turned into full-on missions but that's not what side missions were like in the previous games..you would get a random collection of buildings/boxes that look the same with a random assortment of troops to shoot through.

One thing that gets ignored is the difference is that ME3 made it's optional missions much more integral/interesting to the actual storyline.

For example, Grissom is a SIDE mission..it's completely optional to do and completely blows any of the optional quests from the previous games out of the water...Ex-cerberus scientists and the monastery are SIDE missions.

Yet each of these side/optional missions have more dialogue/more interaction with the characters on the squad AND at the area than any side mission (including ME2's loyalty missions.

Even the smaller N7 missions were heads and shoulders above the selfsame optional missions from before in that each environment had an unique look and was not simply rearranged boxes and prefav buildings

Simply look at the N7 missions in ME3 and look at the UNC missions of ME1 or the N7 missions from ME2

(And my belief is this is from feedback from players complaining about how the side-missions in previous games seemed to exist no more than to pad the length of the game. Admit it...BSN loudly complained about how these missions were "lazy work" given their design)

It's really just an example of how "tweaking" something rarely works.  Chances are, fans are going to dislike the tweak more than they disliked the original.

So when fans **** about how terrible something is (hello, Mako; hello, Harbinger)... THIS is why the SOP is to cut it entirely, rather than just "tweak it" (goodbye, Mako; goodbye, Harbinger).

Maybe fans can keep that in mind the next time something mildly annoys them, and NOT blow it up into this massive game-breaking flaw that ruins their experience.

Ah hell, who am I kidding?  Overreaction is the hallmark of the Internet gamer.  They'll never learn.

Modifié par chemiclord, 29 avril 2013 - 01:31 .

[ThinkSharp]

Bleach, that still doesn't mean the fetch quests are good or fun. From 1's Mako rambling to 2's resource scanning to 3's fetching. They all made improvements upon each other, but each took away more and more of the sense of freedom and exploration (read immersion and interaction), while only removing a fraction of the real problem--tedium. If there were less scanning/fetching quests or they weren't all fundamentally the same task, it wouldn't be so bad. Heck, I enjoyed the first few I did. That there are so many and they all result in the same process of find random planet, scan, come back to the Citadel is the real problem. Not that fetch quests exist at all.

It doesn't help that while ME3 has improved sidequests, none of these are the explore, scan, and land "quests" of 1 or 2. That means that the wider galaxy outside of prescribed missions only exists for scanning and fetching. It's just plain boring after a while.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 29 avril 2013 - 01:36 .

[AresKeith]

Bleachrude wrote...

Redbelle is COMPLETELY wrong about the fetch quests.

The Fetch quests ("Search and rescue") were a replacement for the "Planet scanning" minigame of the previous game....each ME game has some sort of mini-game and ME3 simply incorporated the use of fetch quest with the mini-game. I'm honestly surprised that so many people don't see this as an improvement given the nature of the mini-games from before.

Instead of getting a little bit of loot, the mini-game was more involved in that it utilized a way to increase your effect on the main-game in a noticeable way and provided a bit of lore at the same time.

People seem to think (WRONGLY I mgiht add) that the smaller quests would be turned into full-on missions but that's not what side missions were like in the previous games..you would get a random collection of buildings/boxes that look the same with a random assortment of troops to shoot through.

One thing that gets ignored is the difference is that ME3 made it's optional missions much more integral/interesting to the actual storyline.

For example, Grissom is a SIDE mission..it's completely optional to do and completely blows any of the optional quests from the previous games out of the water...Ex-cerberus scientists and the monastery are SIDE missions.

Yet each of these side/optional missions have more dialogue/more interaction with the characters on the squad AND at the area than any side mission (including ME2's loyalty missions.

Even the smaller N7 missions were heads and shoulders above the selfsame optional missions from before in that each environment had an unique look and was not simply rearranged boxes and prefav buildings

Simply look at the N7 missions in ME3 and look at the UNC missions of ME1 or the N7 missions from ME2

(And my belief is this is from feedback from players complaining about how the side-missions in previous games seemed to exist no more than to pad the length of the game. Admit it...BSN loudly complained about how these missions were "lazy work" given their design)

I hope that isn't directed at my one thread about fetch quests and side missions lol

[Archonsg]

@bleachrude

I believe Redbelle is comparing side quest and tasks to that of ME1, which I too feel are better, because it engaged the player and tried to immerse the player in the world they are exploring.

It needs to be said though that here, we have a divide in what people want from their games.
In ME1 I loved tge fact that I could roam in my Mako, and find resources that aren't marked on the map. Just exploring different worlds, enjoying the view.
If I so choose though, I *can* skip these gathering tasks and just drive to the primary mission point.
At no point did *I* feel that this exploration and gathering was a chore.

On the flip side, I do understand that there are those who do find driving around in the Mako a chore. Usually because the Mako drives like nothing on wheels. ;-)

I would have loved to had been given the Hammerhead MK IIs to drive around. Maneuverability of the MK1s with armor of the Mako? To drive around and explore UNC Worlds ME1 style, with ME2/3 combat / map designs?
Yes please!

Ah well.
Too bad that didn't pan out.

[Bleachrude]

1. People complain about min-games but I think there will always be mini-games per se. Just to break up the monotony of doing the same thing over and over...It's either going to be things like Tower of Hanoi (anyone else glad that Bioware dropped that?) or something else. They actually did refine the planet scanning in that you no longer have to scan EACH planet in a system and thus not as tedious...

2. But ME3 VASTLY did improve the side quests/optional quests of previous titles. Compare the interaction with your teammates during and after you do the Tuchanka bomb mission. You bring Kaidan and Tali to it and you get different comments than if you bring Garrus and Vega.

You interact with Victus and the effect of the side mission if not done is noticeable (you lose Eve, a person who many players get to like)

Afterwards, you can walk among your squadmates and you get comments about the mission (I think this is one area where people hate the auto-dialogue...they wanted conversation wheels for that even though in past games, your squadmates say absolutely nothing about the side missions...yet the glass is looked at half-empty?)

Isn't this what people wanted from the side missions in the previous titles...Surely people didn't expect ALL of those fetch quests to be like that?

[ThinkSharp]

Bleachrude wrote...

1. People complain about min-games but I think there will always be mini-games per se. Just to break up the monotony of doing the same thing over and over...It's either going to be things like Tower of Hanoi (anyone else glad that Bioware dropped that?) or something else. They actually did refine the planet scanning in that you no longer have to scan EACH planet in a system and thus not as tedious...

2. But ME3 VASTLY did improve the side quests/optional quests of previous titles. Compare the interaction with your teammates during and after you do the Tuchanka bomb mission. You bring Kaidan and Tali to it and you get different comments than if you bring Garrus and Vega.

You interact with Victus and the effect of the side mission if not done is noticeable (you lose Eve, a person who many players get to like)

Afterwards, you can walk among your squadmates and you get comments about the mission (I think this is one area where people hate the auto-dialogue...they wanted conversation wheels for that even though in past games, your squadmates say absolutely nothing about the side missions...yet the glass is looked at half-empty?)

Isn't this what people wanted from the side missions in the previous titles...Surely people didn't expect ALL of those fetch quests to be like that?

OK. I can agree with all of this.

Personally, I accept the fetch minigame for what it is, but it is still tedious. Personally, I'd prefer a variety of minigames with less of each, rather than the same one throughout it all.

[AresKeith]

Bleachrude wrote...

1. People complain about min-games but I think there will always be mini-games per se. Just to break up the monotony of doing the same thing over and over...It's either going to be things like Tower of Hanoi (anyone else glad that Bioware dropped that?) or something else. They actually did refine the planet scanning in that you no longer have to scan EACH planet in a system and thus not as tedious...

2. But ME3 VASTLY did improve the side quests/optional quests of previous titles. Compare the interaction with your teammates during and after you do the Tuchanka bomb mission. You bring Kaidan and Tali to it and you get different comments than if you bring Garrus and Vega.

You interact with Victus and the effect of the side mission if not done is noticeable (you lose Eve, a person who many players get to like)

Afterwards, you can walk among your squadmates and you get comments about the mission (I think this is one area where people hate the auto-dialogue...they wanted conversation wheels for that even though in past games, your squadmates say absolutely nothing about the side missions...yet the glass is looked at half-empty?)

Isn't this what people wanted from the side missions in the previous titles...Surely people didn't expect ALL of those fetch quests to be like that?

I actually don't have a real problem with Fetch quests, my only gripe with them in ME3 is that a few of them could have actually been side missions on the scale of Grissom, Tuchanka, or the N7 missions

[Bleachrude]

The one point I WILL agree with Redbelle is the weirdness of "having to take teammate X" to a mission...

I'm not sure WHY they did this for EDI as EDI seems as essential to the storyline as Javik was for Thessia...aka, probably best companion to have but the game works fine with anyone else...indeed, if anything, making it optional would've encouraged more replays as people might pick differing companions before getting the most out of a specific choice....

Tali also is kind of weird in that if you don't have Tali alive, you can pick two teammates of your choice for the geth dreadnought.

I'm honestly wondering what the design purpose behind those forced choices were..especially Tali since the game works fine if she;s not there...

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

It's really just an example of how "tweaking" something rarely works.  Chances are, fans are going to dislike the tweak more than they disliked the original.

Loss Aversion 101? I guess so, but if we define "works" that way, a lot of games don't work. You can still get into an argument over BG2's overland map, for instance.

[Megaton_Hope]

ThinkSharp wrote...
The Rachni immediately comes to mind, here.

That was really quite bothersome. At least there was a lot of Rachni DNA running around in the galaxy for the Reapers to work from, but if you killed the Rachni Queen, you really shouldn't be encountering a "The Rachni Queen (only not really)" like that.

Actually, I really don't dig the way that went in general, because releasing the Queen who'd been tinkered with by Reapers rubs me the wrong way. They could've, instead, had the Rachni queen gallop heroically to the rescue and save you from some mass-produced Rachni clones, though, I could see that. (Or if she's dead, have that not happen.)

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Nothing. The only thing that went slightly wrong was fixed with the EC.

[PsyrenY]

ThinkSharp wrote...

I don't think it's just about new players. There's also "the player who chose something different."

Exactly. This is the whole point behind the Rachni mission playing out the way it did. Even when you destroy the last queen, there are still reaperized Rachni and a difficult choice to make. Best of all, Bioware found a way to reward players for consistency - those who were Paragon before were rewarded for the Paragon choice, those who were Renegade before were rewarded for the Renegade choice, and those who waffled or flip-flopped ended up worse off. This allows for pretty nuanced gameplay.

[PsyrenY]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

ThinkSharp wrote...
The Rachni immediately comes to mind, here.

That was really quite bothersome. At least there was a lot of Rachni DNA running around in the galaxy for the Reapers to work from, but if you killed the Rachni Queen, you really shouldn't be encountering a "The Rachni Queen (only not really)" like that.

Actually, I really don't dig the way that went in general, because releasing the Queen who'd been tinkered with by Reapers rubs me the wrong way. They could've, instead, had the Rachni queen gallop heroically to the rescue and save you from some mass-produced Rachni clones, though, I could see that. (Or if she's dead, have that not happen.)

They didn't "tinker with her" though. They forced her to lay eggs, and THOSE were tinkered with.

She herself was fine, which is why she is able to help the Crucible out once released.
The problem though is that the Rachni's method of communication, while useful (they can communicate across the galaxy without comm buoys or QEC) is also a weakness as it makes them susceptible to control. The Leviathans and even the Protheans (ab)used them too.

[Megaton_Hope]

They tinkered with her like nuts, her mouth is shooting light. It wasn't doing that before.

Supposedly she's resistant to indoctrination, hence her ability to have young that help you rather than murder you, but the physical changes don't inspire trust.

[PsyrenY]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

They tinkered with her like nuts, her mouth is shooting light. It wasn't doing that before.

Eh, I never actually saw its mouth open in ME1 so I wouldn't know. But she says they can't control her - they only take her eggs and block her attempts to nurture them.

[Redbelle]

Since I like to offset wrong with right, (OT I know, but balance and all), The citadel party was an event that hit all the right notes for what ME was about as a game. Which can be summed up in a phrase!

Shepard is the Daddy.......Mummy..... whatever.

This goes back to ME1 and Virmire. One of the most difficult decisions I had to make was who to save and who to leave behind. There's alot of people who feel the same way based on what I've read of other people's experience's. And once the dust settles and your away from the whole business of crippling that base. A character in your squad menu is grayed out forever. Still present, but just a ghost. You arrived at an unexpected crossroads and through nexccessity, you failed to protect one of them.

ME2 take's this theme and bat's it out the park. Suddenly everyones a potential KIA with a bullseye on their back unless you put in the time to tear it off them through preparation for the mission. Come the end, your success or failure rate is not decided by a score or blowing up the collector base. It's who's left standing, as you walk through the Normandy nodding to those who did not fall.

And in ME3, there was no reward for Shepard protecting his flock, until the Citadel DLC. Suddenly all those decision's on who to protect, how to protect them. They all come home and result, what is a brilliant ending for the whole crew. A simple photograph of everyone you saved. And at the same time, a reminder of all those you couldn't. Success in ME may be mission based but the characters are what truely drive the story. Any time the writing leave's the characters behind or leave's them standing like a lump of digital avatar flesh the development team have failed to bring about the realisation of that vision that began in ME1. And come the Citadel the player's action's and choices scored depending on who you could keep alive to continue.

So why is Shepard the Daddy? Mom..... you get the idea..... so why?

People keep coming back again and again to say, this was my favourite character, I wasn't happy about this concerning this character, I loved when this character said.....etc, etc.

It almost sounds like the player's are bragging about their newborn baby's like mother's and fathers, being polite about it, but ultimately arguing that my baby is better than your baby...... (Tali is by far the epiciest btw ;p)

What I think BW have done, is what every story teller want's to do to their audience. They want them enthralled and engaged, not just with the plot, narrative and character's, but with all of that and more.

I think BW made it's fan's feel Maternal towards it's character's. And that is why that photograph of everyone in the Citadel DLC is such a damn good roundoff to the tale of Shepard and his friends.

Modifié par Redbelle, 29 avril 2013 - 11:51 .

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Edit: Never mind

Just a reminder: Keep on topic, or a Bioware dev/moderator will lock this thread out.

Modifié par MegaIllusiveMan, 29 avril 2013 - 04:12 .

[Redbelle]

MegaIllusiveMan wrote...

Edit: Never mind

Just a reminder: Keep on topic, or a Bioware dev/moderator will lock this thread out.

I know, my bad. Just pointing out that one of the strength's of the ME series is it's character's. And crippling the character's in how they interact with Shepard, in a varety of way's is an area where ME3 went wrong. Highlighted by pointing out where the ME trilogy got it right.

Mainly because I don't like to post negatively all the time

[Mathias]

 The Official List of "What went wrong with..." Mass Effect 3


No. 1
Electronic Arts took control of Bioware in the middle of the series.

No. 2
Drew Karpyshyn was not involved in Mass Effect 3, and Mac Walters (a character writer) took control as Lead Writer.

No. 3
The Developers had only 2 years to develop the game.

No. 4
Electronic Arts demanded that the franchise should be streamlined to appeal to the casual audience.

No. 5
Casey Hudson and Mac Walters wrote the ending in a very short amount of time without feedback or input from the rest of the writing team.


There you have it.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 29 avril 2013 - 04:52 .

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Redbelle wrote...

MegaIllusiveMan wrote...

Edit: Never mind

Just a reminder: Keep on topic, or a Bioware dev/moderator will lock this thread out.

I know, my bad. Just pointing out that one of the strength's of the ME series is it's character's. And crippling the character's in how they interact with Shepard, in a varety of way's is an area where ME3 went wrong. Highlighted by pointing out where the ME trilogy got it right.

Mainly because I don't like to post negatively all the time

Nah, no problem. I understood your reasons, but I wasn't saying to you. I was just mentioning, 'cause this thread is so full of discussion, good discussion, that it would be a shame if the thread was locked.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

 The Official List of "What went wrong with..." Mass Effect 3


No. 1
Electronic Arts took control of Bioware in the middle of the series.

No. 2
Drew Karpyshyn was not involved in Mass Effect 3, and Mac Walters (a character writer) took control as Lead Writer.

No. 3
The Developers had only 2 years to develop the game.

No. 4
Electronic Arts demanded that the franchise should be streamlined to appeal to the casual audience.

No. 5
Casey Hudson and Mac Walters wrote the ending in a very short amount of time without feedback or input from the rest of the writing team.


There you have it.

1- What everyone has against EA? Sure they did something wrong on Mass Effect 3, but if EA would have delivered Mass Effect 3 as a kick-ass game, IMHO there wouldn't have things like: EA Sucked, etc.

2- Yes, they did wrong with that. But I think Mass Effect 3 was meant with a small squad because they wanted to focus on Character Relationships, thus they put the Character Writer in Charge.

3- Actually(again, in my honest opinion) they had 3 years, because IIRC Bioware started producing Mass Effect 3 even before Mass Effect 2 was released, when it was in mid-production there was a team working on Mass Effect 2 and another on 3. (I remember that somewhere. Can't find the source )

4- Casual audience? Sorry, I didn't understand... Could you please explain?

5- Yes, in THAT we agree.

[MegaIllusiveMan]

Come on! We(I) want to hear your opinions!