225 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

NeonFlux117 wrote...
well, I think we can agree that ME3 had zero side quests lol, it had what I think 7 N7 missions and fetch quests=Lame. 

What about Grissom Academy? Ardat-Yakshi Monastery? Tuchanka: Bomb? Rannoch:Admiral Koris? And so on.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 mai 2013 - 06:39 .

[NeonFlux117]

dreamgazer wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...

well, I think we can agree that ME3 had zero side quests

We can?

if you can cound the N7 missions then it had 7. 

[NeonFlux117]

AlanC9 wrote...

NeonFlux117 wrote...
well, I think we can agree that ME3 had zero side quests lol, it had what I think 7 N7 missions and fetch quests=Lame. 

What about Grissom Academy? Ardat-Yakshi Monastery? Tuchanka: Bomb? Rannoch:Admiral Koris? And so on.

I don't really consider those side missions but okay so that's 4 plus the 7 N7 missions so you're up to 11. With that train of thought then I guess the loyalty missions in ME2 are considered side and optional?? So that's 12 plus 19 N7 mssions that's 31 for ME2. 

[dreamgazer]

Man, who would've thought that missions like defending a quarian from a pack of varren would become so important?

[KaiserShep]

For all the extra side missions ME1 had, there's no denying that they're pretty repetitive. Heck most of them use the same exact maps, especially the underground bunkers and mines. ME2 didn't really have a whole lot in the way of meaningful side missions. The loyalty missions don't really count as side missions to me, because your primary objective is to prepare your team for the fight against the collectors, and with ME2 being more of a character focus, they were pretty critical to the plot. 

I wonder how many people got annoyed trying to make their way around the MSV Estevanico hull that was teetering on a cliff. I know I was kind of hoping I could press a button to call back the shuttle as my patience wore thin. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 03 mai 2013 - 07:00 .

[NeonFlux117]

dreamgazer wrote...

Man, who would've thought that missions like defending a quarian from a pack of varren would become so important?

hay now, that quarian had a tummy ache and needed help, damn you!!!! It's important. So. So. So importante. :wizard:

[Bleachrude]

What I mentioned in the OTHER thread still remains valid.

I'm almost 100% positive that the design choices for the side missions in ME3 were shaped by US, namely the vocal portion of the ME fanbase, BSN.

Prior to ME3, without fail, one of the biggest complaints about previous ME games were how "padded/lazy work" the side missions were. They tended to look the same, they weren't related to the plot, they existed independent of the world itself in that none of your squadmates commented about them etc.

I can't believe I'm the only one that remembers the multiple threads bemoaning the state of side quests in ME?

To me, it seems like ME3 was directly designed to counter that...the side quests in ME3 are bigger, have more interaction with squadmates both during and after and even the N7 missions will generate comments plus they all have unique locales (no prefab building with boxes/walls rearranged) and many of them have effects on the main plot.

If the question comes down to "which would you prefer? The more numerous ME1/ME2 side missions/quests vs the deeper ME3 side missions, I'm sorry, but I'll take the latter"

Now...in my fantasy world...I of course hope we can get BOTH at the same time..so every side mission in ME1/ME2 would at LEAST have the design of ME3's own...unique dialogue, consequences in the main storyline, different environments for each...

Yeah, yeah...that would probably cost WAY too much, but a guy can dream right?

[Fixers0]

Bleachrude wrote...
To me, it seems like ME3 was directly designed to counter that...the side quests in ME3 are bigger, have more interaction with squadmates both during and after and even the N7 missions will generate comments plus they all have unique locales (no prefab building with boxes/walls rearranged) and many of them have effects on the main plot.

In Reality all N7 missions are just re-used Multiplayers maps, with some added dialogue and worth 10 minutes of gameplay, my favorite must be the one were Cerberus is "denying" being involved in abuctions, like they have a public PR Office or something.

[Bleachrude]

Fixers0 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
To me, it seems like ME3 was directly designed to counter that...the side quests in ME3 are bigger, have more interaction with squadmates both during and after and even the N7 missions will generate comments plus they all have unique locales (no prefab building with boxes/walls rearranged) and many of them have effects on the main plot.

In Reality all N7 missions are just re-used Multiplayers maps, with some added dialogue and worth 10 minutes of gameplay, my favorite must be the one were Cerberus is "denying" being involved in abuctions, like they have a public PR Office or something.

AND?

Would you honestly prefer having ANOTHER set of prefab buildings with the wall/boxes rearranged?

Hell, I'd actually pay $5-10 dollars for a SP map pack of all the released MP maps if they had dialogue/squad interaction and were integrated into the main game a la the original N7 missions.

Make no mistake, I don't mind side missions...I just get bored/annoyed with the ones like in ME1/ME2 since they feel so much like busy work on the part of the developers..admittedly, this annoys me in OTHER games as well..Skyrim, for all its exploration, many of those mini quests take place in the exact same dungeon...Getting there offers new vistas and that's cool, but the actual dungeon/cave part of the quest...UGH

re: Cerberus PR department
Er, what's hard to believe about that? Our real life terrorists have PR departments otherwise how else would they claim/deny terrorist actions?

[Fixers0]

Bleachrude wrote...
Would you honestly prefer having ANOTHER set of prefab buildings with the wall/boxes rearranged?

Prefabs are quite common in the ME univere, actully, one codex entry mentionents this.

Bleachrude wrote...
Hell, I'd actually pay $5-10 dollars for a SP map pack of all the released MP maps if they had dialogue/squad interaction and were integrated into the main game a la the original N7 missions.

Well, i believe that's a gross waste of money but whatever, And i don't recall the ME3 n7 quest having any squad interactions, besides decideing which teamate to send to rescue the other in the fuel reactors mission.

Bleachrude wrote...
re: Cerberus PR department
Er, what's hard to believe about that? Our real life terrorists have PR departments otherwise how else would they claim/deny terrorist actions

Because nobody mentioned it before, nor that anyone is going to believe them, that and the fact that it's inconsistant with Cerberus is a rogue Alliance program dropping off the grid, and being so secret and all.

[Bleachrude]

re: N7 missions.

Did you not talk to your squad after the N7 missions...many of the auto-dialogue responses come from there and on the missions themselves, the squadmates will comment about it.

re: Cerberus PR
Why would it need to be mentioned before? From Sinn Fein to Al-qaida, terrorists groups ALWAYS have a PR department...how else would they get their message across...I mean, Cerberus got started from Jack's PR "The Manifesto" that he released....

At the end of ME1, Cerberus was definitely known to the galaxy (hard to deny their involvment) and if you followed cerberus daily news, people of the galaxy knew about cerberus even before ME2....

[crimzontearz]

Archonsg wrote...

@crimsontearz

Not necessary as in totally optional stuff.
For example, if 6 months after Omega was released and they held a kickstarter styled optional DLC for you to save Nyreen and have her as a squad mate, is that wrong?

It is *optional*.

Or turn Traynor from Lesbian to Bisexual, alternate ending content, bring in Miranda as squad mate with her own line of quest. Ditto for Jack and her biotic babies.

The thing is, we are all going to pay for content. Just how much and how often is the issue.

and who decides what is optional and what is fluff we need to pay for? And you trust EA with that???

[dreamgazer]

crimzontearz wrote...

and who decides what is optional and what is fluff we need to pay for? And you trust EA with that???

Probably more than I would with Activision or Capcom.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 03 mai 2013 - 08:58 .

[AlanC9]

NeonFlux117 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


What about Grissom Academy? Ardat-Yakshi Monastery? Tuchanka: Bomb? Rannoch:Admiral Koris? And so on.

I don't really consider those side missions but okay so that's 4 plus the 7 N7 missions so you're up to 11. With that train of thought then I guess the loyalty missions in ME2 are considered side and optional?? So that's 12 plus 19 N7 mssions that's 31 for ME2. 

You don't  count them as sidequests? How come? They're too good? Too many consequences?

Note that there are a few more I didn't mention, so your count is still off.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 mai 2013 - 08:59 .

[Bleachrude]

I think that's ironically the problem many have with DLC.

Good DLC tends to be stuff that you think should ALREADY be in the game as the quality/fluff for it seems like it was cut from the game...

To use a ME example, many believe that both Lair of the Shadow Broker and Citadel should've been part of their original games..

Conversely, bad DLC nobody misses though (Anyone think Pinnacle Station should be an essential part of ME1?) Yet bad DLC is one that doesn't actually get sales or recommendations from happy customers to other potential customers (never heard of anyone shouting "you HAVE to get pinnacle station).

Which DLC across all 3 games do you consider "good enough to buy" but NOT "should've been in the main game"?

Modifié par Bleachrude, 03 mai 2013 - 09:06 .

[crimzontearz]

dreamgazer wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

and who decides what is optional and what is fluff we need to pay for? And you trust EA with that???

Probably more than I would with Activision or Capcom.

sorry but I do not

[Redbelle]

Bleachrude wrote...

I think that's ironically the problem many have with DLC.

Good DLC tends to be stuff that you think should ALREADY be in the game as the quality/fluff for it seems like it was cut from the game...

To use a ME example, many believe that both Lair of the Shadow Broker and Citadel should've been part of their original games..

Conversely, bad DLC nobody misses though (Anyone think Pinnacle Station should be an essential part of ME1?) Yet bad DLC is one that doesn't actually get sales or recommendations from happy customers to other potential customers (never heard of anyone shouting "you HAVE to get pinnacle station).

Which DLC across all 3 games do you consider "good enough to buy" but NOT "should've been in the main game"?

I've already mentioned before, but Pinnacle station for ME1 was the one DLC I didn't buy for it. When I heard that it would simply give you thing's to do, and not more story to play. I switched off with that. Story telling is BW's main selling point. You can have thing's to do in a narrative content, but take away the narrative content so all you have are thing's to do and I lose interest fast.

It's like the VR mission's in MGS. I'm happy to train my brain in how to use the skills given to me as a player to get through a story. The reward is more story and context based action with context led consequences. Alert a guard? Get the alarm.. The VR mission's reward you with a score........ It's just not as compelling.

DLC I'd buy but not consider essential to the game?

Firewalker
Overlord.
Leviathan
Omega

All the other's I'd peg as DLC I wouldn't buy, or content I consider essential to the trilogy.

[Fixers0]

Bleachrude wrote...
Did you not talk to your squad after the N7 missions...many of the auto-dialogue responses come from there and on the missions themselves, the squadmates will comment about it.

I don't see how this is relevant.

Bleachrude wrote...
Why would it need to be mentioned before? From Sinn Fein to Al-qaida, terrorists groups ALWAYS have a PR department...how else would they get their message across...I mean, Cerberus got started from Jack's PR "The Manifesto" that he released....

Wrong, firstly, Cerberus was an Alliance iniative before gone rogue, Proof: ME1.
Secondly: Present day real examples can't be compared to futere fiction.

Bleachrude wrote...
At the end of ME1, Cerberus was definitely known to the galaxy (hard to deny their involvment) and if you followed cerberus daily news, people of the galaxy knew about cerberus even before ME2....

A: Conjecture.
B: contradictory, non primary source.

Modifié par Fixers0, 03 mai 2013 - 10:11 .

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
Did you not talk to your squad after the N7 missions...many of the auto-dialogue responses come from there and on the missions themselves, the squadmates will comment about it.

I don't see how this is relevant.

It's squadmate diaolgue that's related to the mission. Bleachrude's counting it as part of the mission content since you don't get the content if you don't play the mission. Seems reasonable to me

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 mai 2013 - 10:38 .

[KaiserShep]

Fixers0 wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...
To me, it seems like ME3 was directly designed to counter that...the side quests in ME3 are bigger, have more interaction with squadmates both during and after and even the N7 missions will generate comments plus they all have unique locales (no prefab building with boxes/walls rearranged) and many of them have effects on the main plot.

In Reality all N7 missions are just re-used Multiplayers maps, with some added dialogue and worth 10 minutes of gameplay, my favorite must be the one were Cerberus is "denying" being involved in abuctions, like they have a public PR Office or something.

As one who will probably never play multiplayer, I'll never know the difference

[Bleachrude]

re: side missions
How is that irrelevant? One of the things I think superior about the side missions in ME3 is that your squad will actually comment about them...Hell..I think one of the side missions you find out the fate of that alliance soldier whose brother joined cerberus...

I want my side missions to be acknowledged and to look different....

re: Cerberus unknown
Um, Jack Harper created cerberus (see the novels) and he released the Manifesto to the extranet stating Cerberus' goals...this is all documented ..the alliance used cerberus as a front but it was mostly jack's show.

Why would being the "future" actually change that basic point that groups need PR to get their points across? Why would future terrorists not have a PR department given that they STILL would need to communicate to the wider public as to what their goals are, especially given they need it now...I think you have to show why the future is THAT different than current day

Cerberus daily news (and the novels and IoS games as well) has ALWAYS been canon with regard to ME lore.....I mean, in the first mission in ME2, the quarians knew right away who cerberus was and were hostile because of it.

[Iakus]

Bleachrude wrote...

Would you honestly prefer having ANOTHER set of prefab buildings with the wall/boxes rearranged?

Depends.  Is there a decent story attatched to these prefab buildings?

Grissom Academy=Good side quest.

Cerberus Base on Noveria=lame side quest.

I want sidequests to be more than just land, kill everything in the area, then take off again.  Or guarding a random quarian from the local wildlife.  How original-looking the environment is, to me, is very much secondary.  Unless it has bricked-up doorways.

[SpamBot2000]

Redbelle wrote...

DLC I'd buy but not consider essential to the game?

Firewalker
Overlord.
Leviathan
Omega

All the other's I'd peg as DLC I wouldn't buy, or content I consider essential to the trilogy.

Leviathan is pretty crucial to the "Yo Dawg" Reaper motivation they dreamed up the night before deadline. If a person was inclined to accept that as an integral part of the trilogy, Leviathan would be pretty damn central to it. 

[Fixers0]

Bleachrude wrote...
How is that irrelevant? One of the things I think superior about the side missions in ME3 is that your squad will actually comment about them...Hell..I think one of the side missions you find out the fate of that alliance soldier whose brother joined cerberus...

So, what, news reports and e-mails regarding to sidequests have been in the universe since ME1, it's nothing new.

Bleachrude wrote...
I want my side missions to be acknowledged and to look different....

Personally, when they're just re-used multiplayer maps, i don't think that we should credit it's level design.

Bleachrude wrote...
Um, Jack Harper created cerberus (see the novels) and he released the Manifesto to the extranet stating Cerberus' goals...this is all documented ..the alliance used cerberus as a front but it was mostly jack's show.

No, Cerberus was created as an Alliance Blackop that went rogue af few months prior to the events of ME1 because of illegal experiments, Drew Karpyshyn outright confirmed this was all Cerberus was when it was first created.

Bleachrude wrote...
Why would being the "future" actually change that basic point that groups need PR to get their points across? Why would future terrorists not have a PR department given that they STILL would need to communicate to the wider public as to what their goals are, especially given they need it now...I think you have to show why the future is THAT different than current day

Because Cerberus doesn't firt the image of a generic moderen-day terrorist group perhaps?

Bleachrude wrote...
Cerberus daily news (and the novels and IoS games as well) has ALWAYS been canon with regard to ME lore.....I mean, in the first mission in ME2, the quarians knew right away who cerberus was and were hostile because of it.

It's as secondary source and as such shouldn't be neccesary to understand the primary plot.

[Mastone]

I have seen some comments here about number and quality of sidequests, now I haven''t counted them the only thing I do know is that ME1 sucked me into the story and the game and ME3 put me of anything Bioware until they change.

I also saw comments about DLC, as I said in another thread :
http://social.biowar...13/283#16619262
---------------------------------------------------
"-DLC:
Stop this malarkey and focus on creating a finished game, all this nonsense about needing the money and expanding the universe is ridiculous.
Profits for triple A titles are soaring, the fact that EA has a lot of overhead ( read managment layers , lawyers, accountants) should not be the reason their customers get landed with half finished games.
If you want to receive $80 for a videogame be honest about it and just charge that and get it over with, be sure to create a demo level then as well so people will be able to look before they buy, since a lot of people are doubting your ability to make a half decent game ( me included) at this point"
---------------------------------------------------
To add to this comment I would like people to think about it( meaning the principle of DLC) I am sure that if you think about it and have some knowledge with regards to game making, you will reach the same conclusion I have reached.
This is that adding DLC to a title will break the game, why do you ask?
Making a game which is based on storytelling and characters with multiple outcomes requires a lot of planning ( ie which character reveals what information, in what level does information X get revealed etc).
So if you have an optional character ( Javik anyone?) or level ( Leviathan/Omega/citadel) the character of the content will always have to be sort of optional never providing core knowledge.
While I believe a character like Javik should have extensive knowledge on reaper tactics and physiology and could have been a true plotdevice this was impossible since not everyone would have access to this character so he was never used as such.
He only provided knowledge they could have put in a journal.

I also remember times where instead of unlocking a stupid message from steam ( achievements) you would unlock a piece of equipment when you finished certain hard parts in a game..nowadays you just purchase bioware points and get a gun which blows a reaper out of the sky.
So the game mechanic where you have to build/find a more powerful weapon in order to defeat an enemy is broken as well...same goes for equipment.

Another thing I hate about dlc is the fact that it shifts game making on a backseat making earning moneymaking its one and only purpose.
I also remember when I was young and had to save up for a game and make the ( hard) choice which game to buy, I am sure kids nowadays face the same dilemmas...the only thing that was better for me is that when I choose a game at least it was well crafted and polished and worth teh money and reviews were a lot more honest and realistic 10 out of 10 was only for games like Zelda a link to the past and Donkey kong country.