99 réponses à ce sujet

[MegaIllusiveMan]

I was thinking of missions like the Dr. Death mission and one or two others. You know the ones aboard ships? I forget the exact details.

 

Varied planets would be great. And they look so, from what we've seen so far. That's definitely one thing to look forward to 

 

Dr.Saleon, The Rachni Infected ship, the delerict Ship, Biotic Terrorists mission, that one ship that everyone died in the hands of Julia, the woman biotic.

Of course, problem is, that is the exact same ship all over and over again. See, if you decide to play them all before going to the Citadel for the last time(like I did in 4 or 5 runs), it's completely pain in the ass. All those Side-Missions with the same mine/Mercenary Encampment, enemies everywhere, go go go! Mako Exploration...

 

I have to disagree on this one. ME2's side missions were a downgrade imo. Too linear and pointless, like much of the level design and narrative in that game.

 

The problem wasn't in ME2, but in ME3. The Side-Missions in ME1 weren't a problem and pointless in ME1, but in ME2. Why? Because those decisions got COMPLETELY ignored. No mention to ANY of those Side-Missions (Few from ME1 to ME2, like Helena Blake's appearence, but what about those Minerals you collect? Only for the War Effort in ME3... Those Insignias? Yup, War Assets...)

 The Closest mention I've ever heard in my playthroughs was that Jona Sederis said that Shepard killed lot of her people in the past (Altough I'm not sure if this is a mention to the side-quests or even the Plot Missions that involved Eclipse)

In Short, it wouldn't be a pointless waste of time if, in any of the trilogy games, those Side-Missions if only they were referenced or impacted the universe in the following games.

[L. Han]

Dragon Age: Inquisition is kind of a mixed bag. There was very little climax and the events lacked build up. Hopefully the Mass Effect team takes note of this and looks to improve from it's own franchise instead.

 

To list out a few things DA:I does poorly:

 

- Pitiful villain. Never wins anything, only rages around like mindless chump. At least Kai Leng succeeds every now and then.

- Moments are very short and ineffective. (Especially battles. They barely last more than an hour). DA:I doesn't have anything that is even close to the Battle of the Citadel

- Events lacked "livin' it" ambiance. You rarely see anything that looks anything more than a brawl between 4 people. At least the Suicide Mission had cutscenes where you have more than 10 people fighting in it.

[RoboticWater]

I have to disagree on this one. ME2's side missions were a downgrade imo. Too linear and pointless, like much of the level design and narrative in that game.

While I agree that ME1's missions had a bit more plot going for them, I can't see how they were any less linear. Sure, you could drive around a barren rock for a couple minuets (for no apparent reason), but eventually you had to trudge through the same claustrophobic, recycled hallways.

 

I'd argue that ME2's side missions were the most fun and show the most potential of the series. Almost every single one of them tried to do something different with the gameplay. Some weren't that great (charging the YIMR with batteries comes to mind), but some had pretty cool concepts going for them (following beacons, solving puzzles, playing with visibility, etc.).

 

IMO, that's what side missions should try to be; small gameplay experiments. Yes, side missions allow the writers to flesh out the universe more (and they should still strive to do that) but more importantly, they allow the gameplay designers to get a little more creative. Some cool gameplay mechanics might not feel right packaged in a main mission, so why not make a small diversion to test it out? ME2's side missions weren't perfect of course. You're right that they feel a bit pointless. Obviously, the ideal scenario for MENext would be lots of in-depth, non-linear, and interesting missions, but that's not a very realistic expectation to have.

 

Yes, plot and non-linearity are very high priorities, but we shouldn't discount ME2's missions entirely. They weren't a step in the wrong direction but rather, a different direction. Hopefully MENext can reconcile the best of these design philosophies. I want my lore, but I also want to have fun.

[Mcfly616]

 

 

 The Closest mention I've ever heard in my playthroughs was that Jona Sederis said that Shepard killed lot of her people in the past (Altough I'm not sure if this is a mention to the side-quests or even the Plot Missions that involved Eclipse)

In Short, it wouldn't be a pointless waste of time if, in any of the trilogy games, those Side-Missions if only they were referenced or impacted the universe in the following games.

I don't base my opinion of side missions on whether they're referenced in the following game. 

[Mcfly616]

While I agree that ME1's missions had a bit more plot going for them, I can't see how they were any less linear. Sure, you could drive around a barren rock for a couple minuets (for no apparent reason), but eventually you had to trudge through the same claustrophobic, recycled hallways.

 

I'd argue that ME2's side missions were the most fun and show the most potential of the series. Almost every single one of them tried to do something different with the gameplay. Some weren't that great (charging the YIMR with batteries comes to mind), but some had pretty cool concepts going for them (following beacons, solving puzzles, playing with visibility, etc.).

 

IMO, that's what side missions should try to be; small gameplay experiments. Yes, side missions allow the writers to flesh out the universe more (and they should still strive to do that) but more importantly, they allow the gameplay designers to get a little more creative. Some cool gameplay mechanics might not feel right packaged in a main mission, so why not make a small diversion to test it out? ME2's side missions weren't perfect of course. You're right that they feel a bit pointless. Obviously, the ideal scenario for MENext would be lots of in-depth, non-linear, and interesting missions, but that's not a very realistic expectation to have.

 

Yes, plot and non-linearity are very high priorities, but we shouldn't discount ME2's missions entirely. They weren't a step in the wrong direction but rather, a different direction. Hopefully MENext can reconcile the best of these design philosophies. I want my lore, but I also want to have fun.

In ME1, you have options on how to approach certain combat scenarios during specific side missions, due to the fact of how open the landscape was. Unlike ME2's, where in every single one, you are dropped into a confined level (the size of some ME3 multiplayer levels) and forced to run along a single path (or corridor), to a single building, through a single door, just to have some "Mission Complete" summary pop up  at the end with no mention of what transpired once you get back to the ship.

 

 

 

The galaxy's a big place. Bioware should get back to acting like it.

[RoboticWater]

In ME1, you have options on how to approach certain combat scenarios during specific side missions, due to the fact of how open the landscape was. Unlike ME2's, where in every single one, you are dropped into a confined level (the size of some ME3 multiplayer levels) and forced to run along a single path (or corridor), to a single building, through a single door, just to have some "Mission Complete" summary pop up  at the end with no mention of what transpired once you get back to the ship.

Not Really. In ME1 you dropped in with the Mako, drove to the little X on the map, and started the mission only after entering whatever structure that seemed to be carelessly placed there. ME2 just cut out the the lame driving bits. I'd probably agree with you if ME1's combat started outside, but that's not the case for most missions. Even the ones that were outside didn't give you too many more options. Honestly, the only one benefitting from the long distance is the sniper. Everyone else just runs up like normal.

The galaxy's a big place. Bioware should get back to acting like it.

And I'm sure they will, now that galactic war is over. I never explicitly said BioWare should cut down on content, but if they must make sacrifices (and they'll most definitely have to) I'd rather scale get cut down before gameplay diversity.

[chris2365]

In ME1, you have options on how to approach certain combat scenarios during specific side missions, due to the fact of how open the landscape was. 

 

What do you mean by this? Most side quests in ME1 involved taking the Mako, going to an outpost, clearing out said outpost, then proceeding to linear corridor sections.

 

Sure, you had a few different approaches, but there aren't as many as one would think. It mostly involved good positioning and exploiting enemy blind spots, especially for turrets. I don't see what's so special about camping outside an outpost and either using the Mako or using a sniper to kill everything (my preferred strategy   ). 

 

The terrain and landscapes sure offer potential for gameplay, but it needs to be developed more. Must be more varied, more possibilities. Interactive environments perhaps? Maybe there could be multiple ways to approach a specific outpost? Blasting a hole into a mountain with the Mako and sneaking into their back door maybe? Finding a loose set of rocks above a cavern and luring the enemies under out, then going in ambush style with the Mako and causing mayhem? Those would be better ways to use the landscape, imo, then simple open landscapes like ME1.

[chris2365]

While for the most part I agree with you, one of the best missions in ME1 in my opinion is the one where that guy from Shepard's past (I can't remember which background it was, I feel like Sole Survivor) traps you in the tunnels and puts a nuke in them. After you disarm it you can't return the same way you came, so you come out at a completely different area, on a plateau looking down on a number of enemies. Was perfecting for a sniper. Then you have to trek down to your Mako.

 

Was for War Hero, actually   While I agree on the sniper part, the situation wasn't exactly ideal for any class besides Infiltrator or Soldier. They basically had to run down to the Mako and prayed that they would make it 

[chris2365]

Well Biotics probably had a shot. Cast a good ole singularity.

 

That is if they weren't detected by the enemies  on the way down the hill  Or could singularity reach from that far up? 

[goishen]

The only problem that I have with dieing heroically is that...   Nobody dies heroically.  Either you win the battle heroically (which you then get to write the history) or you take it in the ass by an 800 lb krogan (who then gets to write the history).

 

This sense of realism is one of the things that drew me to the game in the first place.  There are no heroics in ME (except for Shepard).   It's one thing to write high fantasy (like DA).  It's completely different to write urban fantasy (like ME).  And I would argue that even in Shepard's case, there was no thought of, "Oh, I'm doing this because I'm a hero!"   Shepard had reasons.  Shepard was not an idealist.

[KaiserShep]

One thing I think Mass Effect can learn from Dragon Age in general is a greater variety of reactions from companions based on your choices. If the goody two-shoes character doesn't want me to defenestrate the hell outta mercs, be a racist bag of schlongs or render a species extinct, my PC should lose some cool points with that character if I do just that. 

 

Another thing I think they could do, and what I hope they really do for this next game, is get rid of the paragon and renegade system. A bar to tell me how ruthless I've been is not really meaningful, especially in ME3, where I can be just renegade enough to get the specific dialogue, yet still make all the major paragon choices. I'll remember if I killed some defenseless jerk for no reason.

[Mcfly616]

What do you mean by this? Most side quests in ME1 involved taking the Mako, going to an outpost, clearing out said outpost, then proceeding to linear corridor sections.

 

Sure, you had a few different approaches, but there aren't as many as one would think. It mostly involved good positioning and exploiting enemy blind spots, especially for turrets. I don't see what's so special about camping outside an outpost and either using the Mako or using a sniper to kill everything (my preferred strategy   ). 

 

The terrain and landscapes sure offer potential for gameplay, but it needs to be developed more. Must be more varied, more possibilities. Interactive environments perhaps? Maybe there could be multiple ways to approach a specific outpost? Blasting a hole into a mountain with the Mako and sneaking into their back door maybe? Finding a loose set of rocks above a cavern and luring the enemies under out, then going in ambush style with the Mako and causing mayhem? Those would be better ways to use the landscape, imo, then simple open landscapes like ME1

I never said it was perfect. I said they were the best in the trilogy. And I've always been an advocate for improving on good concepts that are flawed, rather than completely removing it all together like the middle installment of the franchise went ahead with.

 

 

I never said it was special either. However, I have said I prefer choice of approach. And having the option to roll up with the Mako, or snipe from the peak of a mountain is much better than having every single mission boil down to: run down this hallway, shoot the baddies that are filtering through the one door right in front if you. Rinse, repeat. Lets be honest, while the sniper rifles in ME2 and 3 were awesome, the linear level design made them entirely unnecessary. 

 

 

The backstories alone, were enough to keep me more engaged in ME1 side missions than I ever was with the sequels equivalents.

[Mcfly616]

Not Really. In ME1 you dropped in with the Mako, drove to the little X on the map, and started the mission only after entering whatever structure that seemed to be carelessly placed there. ME2 just cut out the the lame driving bits. I'd probably agree with you if ME1's combat started outside, but that's not the case for most missions. Even the ones that were outside didn't give you too many more options. Honestly, the only one benefitting from the long distance is the sniper. Everyone else just runs up like normal.

And I'm sure they will, now that galactic war is over. I never explicitly said BioWare should cut down on content, but if they must make sacrifices (and they'll most definitely have to) I'd rather scale get cut down before gameplay diversity.

 And that's still more options than the sequels lend us. Scale offers gameplay diversity (combat specifically). Lack thereof actually limits that diversity. 

 

 

Combat starts outside enough times in ME1 that it doesn't make it seem quite as repetitive as ME2's side quests.

 

 

 

Hell, half of ME1 main story missions (even the very first one) are less linear than anything the sequels offered. It's pathetic. 

 

I guess we can just agree to disagree. Everyone has their preferences after all. I'd prefer not to be herded like cattle from point A to point B over and over  for the duration of a 50+ hour game.

[goishen]

Another thing I think they could do, and what I hope they really do for this next game, is get rid of the paragon and renegade system. A bar to tell me how ruthless I've been is not really meaningful, especially in ME3, where I can be just renegade enough to get the specific dialogue, yet still make all the major paragon choices. I'll remember if I killed some defenseless jerk for no reason.

 

 

Yah, I kind'a think that the entire paragon/renegade system is going away in ME:N.  Call it a hunch.

[Mcfly616]

Personally, I felt the P/R system was made pointless due to the fact that even if I was full Paragon, I could still go Renegade on any choice I wanted.

 

 

Kind of defeated the purpose all together and broke immersion for me.

[KaiserShep]

I agree. If I'm going to establish my character's morality, it might as well just be the sum of the choices that I've made as I see it, and of course how certain characters may react to it. If I can save a basket of kittens in one instance, then set a defenseless hobo ablaze the next, it doesn't really matter.

[Mcfly616]

I agree. If I'm going to establish my character's morality, it might as well just be the sum of the choices that I've made as I see it, and of course how certain characters may react to it. If I can save a basket of kittens in one instance, then set a defenseless hobo ablaze the next, it doesn't really matter.

 ME1 did that aspect best as well.  Your P/R tendencies essentially kept you in character the entire game (even if Meer was as wooden as Hayden Christensen). They even gave you 1 of 2 possible missions based on it. 

 

 

Either find a way to improve upon the way it originally was, or just do away with it entirely. Either way, they still should make the NPC's react accordingly when your character is around, based on who you've become or are becoming throughout the course of the game.

[Jimbo_Gee79]

One of the major things that annoyed me in Inquisition was how someone would say " blah blah stole my ring" and the response would be " someone stole your ring?" Thats what she just said!

 

On top of that i had no choice whether to accept the quest or not, it was assumed by me asking about it i had accepted. Very annoying.

[KaiserShep]

One of the major things that annoyed me in Inquisition was how someone would say " blah blah stole my ring" and the response would be " someone stole your ring?" Thats what she just said!

 

On top of that i had no choice whether to accept the quest or not, it was assumed by me asking about it i had accepted. Very annoying.

 

Yeah, I don't care for that either, but it was something I found to exist in DA2 and the Mass Effect games as well, though not with the same level of frequency. 

 

Technically, you always have a choice whether or not to accept the quest. The only real difference is that there's no dialogue option that simply says "no" to basically seal the quest off. 

[Mcfly616]

They also need to bring back the neutral dialogue responses. What if I'm not the good guy....what if I'm not the bad guy....what if I'm just some dude that's completely indifferent to whatever the hell this character is saying to me? I should be able to respond accordingly.

[chris2365]

They also need to bring back the neutral dialogue responses. What if I'm not the good guy....what if I'm not the bad guy....what if I'm just some dude that's completely indifferent to whatever the hell this character is saying to me? I should be able to respond accordingly.

 

Dialogue definitely needs to be reworked. I don't know how it is in DAI, but I don't want a simple ''Pick paragon all the way to win'' approach that there was through the trilogy. You were punished once for picking paragon options instead of renegade options, if memory serves. 

 

Reintroduce the middle option and give us incentives for really thinking about our dialogue choices. Maybe helping someone actually leads to a trap, while playing it safe with a middle option would avoid the situation, as an example.

[KaiserShep]

Dialogue definitely needs to be reworked. I don't know how it is in DAI, but I don't want a simple ''Pick paragon all the way to win'' approach that there was through the trilogy. You were punished once for picking paragon options instead of renegade options, if memory serves. 

 

Reintroduce the middle option and give us incentives for really thinking about our dialogue choices. Maybe helping someone actually leads to a trap, while playing it safe with a middle option would avoid the situation, as an example.

 

DA:I does have a lot of neutral responses. You don't have to have strong feelings about this or that a lot of the time.