I'd say the N7 missions in ME3 were pretty good. Maybe if there was a touch more to them than combat, some bits of exploration and trying to reach a specific object or something in each one wouldn't go amiss.
Those Citadel fetch quests don't even count as sidequests imo. They're just padding, planet scanning but less immersive.
Thing is, those quests were the equivalent of ME1's collections and ME2's mineral mining. In terms of real meat-and-potatoes sidequests, ME3 has plenty. Think of all the quests with tangential characters in them: hell, Grissom Academy is a SIDE QUEST. Think about how much effort went into designing that place, the characters, variations and such. Same with Grunt's mission, Samara, Jacob, and the sidequests on the Tuchanka and Rannoch hub.
ME3 has the best "side quests" of any BioWare game I've played. Besides maybe BG2, but I don't think that's a fair comparison.
Right, and I had no problem with any of those. I think the acquisition was solid across the board - yes, you're sort of eavesdropping to pick up some of them, but most of the time these are pretty loud conversations that the people clearly mustn't be trying to keep private or they wouldn't be having them so audibly and in public. (Or, like in the case of the two who want to assassinate the Cerberus prisoner, they're acting suspicious enough to catch Shepard's attention.) With some of them, such as the ones having to do with C-Sec after the coup or the ones in the hospital, you can even assume that Shepard is actively looking for ways to help out on the Citadel while s/he's there. In terms of design, the companion-based sidequests were definitely the best, the N7 ones and most of the dialogue-based ones on the Citadel were OK, and the scanning ones were, as you said, mostly padding.
In addition to the fairly minimal content in the scanning quests, the other problem I had was that sometimes they didn't make a whole lot of sense. Rescuing a bunch of Elcor civilians, for example, logically ought to involve a lot more than just launching a probe at a planet, probably as much time and effort if not more than Grissom, Utukku, and some of the others. And I recall a couple of times that I found an Alliance or asari ship on some random planet without much explanation of how they got there or why.
You're asking for too much because Bioware has always been very stark and blunt here. KOTOR 2 was a big deconstruction of the Star Wars IP that Bioware just closely followed with KOTOR 1.
Bioware didn't make KOTOR 2. Obsidian did.
Bioware didn't make KOTOR 2. Obsidian did.
Which was part of my point. You give their franchise to another developer with a knack for good writing and BOOM, suddenly the IP is a lot more nuanced (only Obsidian and Avellone could've done this!)
In an interview Casey Hudson said part of the appeal for him, with making games, is trying to "recreate" the expriences he had going to movies and I'm not sure if everyone at Bioware agrees with that but I think it really showed, and still shows in a lot of games. They're sometimes too focused on making their story mimic something else, like the child in ME3 being pretty much a nod to the little girl in red dress scene in Schindler's List (note ME3 has heavy WWII movie influence in general) or people saying "I'm getting Lord of the Rings vibes" from Dragon Age Origins or that Skyhold reveal in Inquisition. *gasp*
CDPR may have cheated a bit too, with Witcher 3 because I heard from Daniel Bloodworth from Gametrailers that they have taken a lot of inspiration as well as incorporated a lot of subplots from the Witcher novels and short stories within the Witcher 3 game.
You have to give Bioware credit for the fact that they own 2 entirely original IPs now, so the challenge is also bigger for them. They don't have any background material to support themselves with.
But even so, I think the KOTOR example is a good way to show where I think Bioware usually falter. They stick too much to cliches and one-sided ideas, like archetypes; good and evil, instead of making complex narratives where everything originates from believable motivations.
I hated how they decided "TIM is evil in ME3. Let's make him look darker and more evil in his expressions and make his arguments with Shepard more on edge", just stuff like that is why I think Bioware constantly stumble. They need to go back to formula and carefully consider all possible root-causes for every action their characters might make so we don't end up with contrivance after contrivance, and simplistic character motivations; They need to do better so we don't end up with that awful culprit-reveal in the court-quest in DA:I or the numerous character assassinations in ME3.
They also seriously need to cut down on the writing staff for each title. 8 writers is way too many cooks in the kitchen for one story IMO.
PS: If you haven't played KOTOR 2 yet, you should. I played it for the first time last year and it defintiely holds up.
PPS: Excellent write-up of what makes KOTOR 2 a (IMO) masterpiece, by Kotaku: http://kotaku.com/wh...tter-1583670790
Most of Witcher 3's side-quests are phenomenal. They're well-written, thematically strong, and create slightly different atmospheres for each one.
They're also driven by a fixed protagonist with a specific job title that makes "go kill/fetch X and get paid" a lot easier to work around.
Most of Witcher 3's side-quests are phenomenal. They're well-written, thematically strong, and create slightly different atmospheres for each one.
They're also driven by a fixed protagonist with a specific job title that makes "go kill/fetch X and get paid" a lot easier to work around.
That is one definite advantage to having a fixed protagonist. You lose the customization of creating your own hero, but you do gain a lot more in terms of a narrative that is crafted specifically for your character. I guess its a matter of personal preference on which side of the coin you find yourself.
Ugh another of these threads. Look, DAI was the first instance where we have an expansive setting to literally play in. The devs are probably taking into account the fetch quests feedback to generate more expansive sidequests. In fact, you can consider the companion quests to be sidequests of a sort. Just like ME2 or ME3. Heck, even the DLC can be considered sidequests.
As for the Witcher, they came out later than DAI. They probably played DAI and figured out how to tweak their product better since I believe they delayed their game after DAI came out. Could be wrong.
Whatever the case, listening to people saying how DAI should be like Witcher 3 or whatever is tiring and pretty much a snoozefest. Both games have different focus points.
TLDR Pointless comparisons, different products, different developers, go fish.......
That is one definite advantage to having a fixed protagonist. You lose the customization of creating your own hero, but you do gain a lot more in terms of a narrative that is crafted specifically for your character. I guess its a matter of personal preference on which side of the coin you find yourself.
Thing is, Shepard was a relatively fixed protagonist too. They wanted to stop the Reapers. Yeah, you could pick different backstories for them and you could chose to go paragon or renegade, but that's really it.
Thing is, Shepard was a relatively fixed protagonist too. They wanted to stop the Reapers. Yeah, you could pick different backstories for them and you could chose to go paragon or renegade, but that's really it.
True, which is why Shepard worked more as a (mostly) acceptable protagonist vs. the hit and miss of Dragon Age's multiple heroes (IMO).
Basing the narrative around a set character like Shepard or Hawke worked better than trying to attach it to a blank slate character with a title (The Warden, the Inquisitor), it allowed for a greater degree in personalization for the PC and his/her story.
Thing is, Shepard was a relatively fixed protagonist too. They wanted to stop the Reapers. Yeah, you could pick different backstories for them and you could chose to go paragon or renegade, but that's really it.
Comparing to Geralt? No.
Shepard was bland character who formed his/her personality through all three games and nearly every try to give him some additional fixed trait or opinion ended with uproar on forums.
Geralt is character from two books of short stories and one pentalogy (+ new novel before Witcher 3) and CDProject stuck with this predefined personality whole trilogy and based many quests and situation directly on it. This allowed them to create much deeper "personal" quests then it should be possible in ME.
Thing is, Shepard was a relatively fixed protagonist too. They wanted to stop the Reapers. Yeah, you could pick different backstories for them and you could chose to go paragon or renegade, but that's really it.
Shepard has canonical traits, yes, but the available spectrum of morality and the nebulous military/organization authorities s/he takes on create fairly broad boundaries. Far more than the male, mutant supernatural bounty hunter with predefined perspectives based on prior fiction.
Which was part of my point. You give their franchise to another developer with a knack for good writing and BOOM, suddenly the IP is a lot more nuanced (only Obsidian and Avellone could've done this!)
I really like KOTOR 2, but I think you're overrating it a bit, here. Sure, it contained a pretty original take on Star Wars (though the whole "both sides suck" thing is also present in KOTOR 1 to a lesser degree). It's also as subtle as a bag of bricks, with a mentor character spouting 15 minute Avellone speeches at you and getting hissy if you don't agree. Not to mention Kreia's plan is absurdly stupid.
KOTOR 1 and 2 are interesting because they do a pretty good job at highlighting the respective strengths of each studio. KOTOR has an excellent cast with a blank slate PC and great "holy crap you can do that?" C&C. KOTOR 2 is more intellectual with its "twist" and the characters and events overall are more neutral-leaning than good or bad.
Thing is, those quests were the equivalent of ME1's collections and ME2's mineral mining. In terms of real meat-and-potatoes sidequests, ME3 has plenty. Think of all the quests with tangential characters in them: hell, Grissom Academy is a SIDE QUEST. Think about how much effort went into designing that place, the characters, variations and such. Same with Grunt's mission, Samara, Jacob, and the sidequests on the Tuchanka and Rannoch hub.
ME3 has the best "side quests" of any BioWare game I've played. Besides maybe BG2, but I don't think that's a fair comparison.
Grind like ME2's mineral scanning and ME3's fetch/scanning quests should just be cut. The games already have plenty of content by modern standards and this low-quality filler just brings down the experience.
In ME3's case the word budget would have been better spent on something like more ambient dialogue reacting to your choices and the progression of the plot.
I really like KOTOR 2, but I think you're overrating it a bit, here. Sure, it contained a pretty original take on Star Wars (though the whole "both sides suck" thing is also present in KOTOR 1 to a lesser degree). It's also as subtle as a bag of bricks, with a mentor character spouting 15 minute Avellone speeches at you and getting hissy if you don't agree. Not to mention Kreia's plan is absurdly stupid.
KOTOR 1 and 2 are interesting because they do a pretty good job at highlighting the respective strengths of each studio. KOTOR has an excellent cast with a blank slate PC and great "holy crap you can do that?" C&C. KOTOR 2 is more intellectual with its "twist" and the characters and events overall are more neutral-leaning than good or bad.
Great post.
It's also worth mentioning that the more... grey approach of KoTOR 2 is "anti Star Wars". It's certainly interesting, but moral ambiguity is not what Star Wars is about.
I am really tired of seeing threads like these popping everyday.
I played The Witcher 3 for about 20 hours and couldn't get into it. I was desperate for an RPG to play and gave it a go. It looked gorgeous and I appreciated the cinematic sidequests but the story didn't grab me and Geralt is... not really the sort of protagonist I want to play. Tough, gruff medieval cowboy guy. I liked the action based combat once I got used to it. I might pick it up again but I found it hard to care about what was going on or why I was doing anything. £40 for 20 hours is still worth the money though.
I played The Witcher 3 for about 20 hours and couldn't get into it. I was desperate for an RPG to play and gave it a go. It looked gorgeous and I appreciated the cinematic sidequests but the story didn't grab me and Geralt is... not really the sort of protagonist I want to play. Tough, gruff medieval cowboy guy. I liked the action based combat once I got used to it. I might pick it up again but I found it hard to care about what was going on or why I was doing anything. £40 for 20 hours is still worth the money though.
Which was part of my point. You give their franchise to another developer with a knack for good writing and BOOM, suddenly the IP is a lot more nuanced (only Obsidian and Avellone could've done this!)
Ah. Sorry, I vastly prefer KOTOR 1 over KOTOR 2 so I read it wrong.
Basing the narrative around a set character like Shepard or Hawke worked better than trying to attach it to a blank slate character with a title (The Warden, the Inquisitor), it allowed for a greater degree in personalization for the PC and his/her story.
No, it didn't. The Warden and the Inquisitor felt like my character. Hawke and Shepard made to many assumptions about what I would do so didn't feel like my characters, despite being sold that. I'd take a Warden or Inquisitor over a Hawke or Shepard any day.
Why? Because it isnt Bioware worship thread? I do not know about you but I own TW3 and the OP is right. Say what you want about CDPR or TW3, but the side quest presentation and implementation in TW3 is far superior to the side quest of DAI, Bioware's most recent game.
You like Witcher 3? Good for you! That doesn't mean people should make infinite threads about it, there are already quite a few.
Sidequest of Mass Effect 3 was brilliant, the ending was the only problem.
I don't know how practical it would be but having fully animated cutscenes in secondary quests is fantastic - I honestly cannot tell the difference between sidequests and the main campaign because not only is there no visible deterioration in quality of writing or level design or voice acting, there's unique score and almost every interior and NPC is unique and full of character and the variety of non combat content during quests is pretty remarkable. It's pretty much the only RPG i've ever played where you don't have to hold your noise and drudge through filler content just to level up appropriately because there is non to speak of really. Secondary quests feel like natural organic extensions of primary quests, part of the larger extended story with the mainquest simply being the condensed cliff notes version. Definitely feels like a step forwards from Skyrim for the genre.
No, it didn't. The Warden and the Inquisitor felt like my character. Hawke and Shepard made to many assumptions about what I would do so didn't feel like my characters, despite being sold that. I'd take a Warden or Inquisitor over a Hawke or Shepard any day.
Well the Warden did have other things going for him/her to make that character feel more attuned to player input, namely the protagonist being silent allowed for a more multifaceted approach to many situations. The Inquisitor on the other hand was rather generic, my Dwarf PC didn't feel like, or even act like a dwarf. He, like Varric, was a short human and the narrative made maybe one, or two direct mentions of my racial choice in the form of: "Hey, you're a Dwarf.".
A pre-established protagonist like Shepard, Hawke, or Geralt might have the narrative make assumptions about their characters, but because of that known factor the plot can be interwoven more closely to their stories. If the writers know that they have a solid foundation to build off of, they can make the narrative more personal to the character; it may not fit in with how we might envision our characters, but it would fit with the pre-established nature of these protagonists.
One method is not inherently better than the other, but there are things that have to be sacrificed when exploring each one. Either you have to make the story around the hero more generic in order to account for their blank-slate / fill-in-the-blank nature, or you have to give up a semblance of input for a more personalized (for the character, not necessarily for the player) story.
I never want a silent protagonist again. I think they got it right in DA2 by choosing a personality type early but then still being able to choose 3 different options each time. So for example, a diplomatic Hawke can still choose the funny like but It will a light hearted joke compared to the scathing one-liner of a sarcastic Hawke. You can also change your personality right at the start of each act to show character progression. It can also change with time if you make enough choices in contrast to your "chosen" personality.
The mechanic's not perfect but it works quite well. Better than looking at a dumb-struck warden trying to communicate through blinking Morse code or telepathy.
The Inquisitor's were all a little one I thought except for Jon Curry who was the only actor with experience voicing a main character in a DA game. I think this was also by direction because people complained that they couldn't "headcanon" who their Hawke was compared to the Warden. Using your imagination is reserved for reading books or playing D&D tabletop games.
Retour en haut