841 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

Eh, I dunno. Until shards came around scanning 20 keepers was pretty much the worst fetch quest Bio had done. Even then, shards at least had semi-meaningful loot rewards.

[Il Divo]

To me, a fetch quest is more a game mechanic than a part of the story. Something like a quest giver buying pelts and sending you out to kill wolves for their pelts. Hand over the pelts, earn money, done. No story behind it. It doesn't breathe life into the world, it doesn't contribute to story or character development, it's all about the reward. Some exp, some money, maybe some gear.

 

Feros had a few side missions (clear out Geth, turn on water valves, kill alpha varren, find a power cell) but I wouldn't really see them as fetch quests. They tie directly into the main mission and the story, they aren't about random items you don't actually fetch anything in 75% of the cases. Oh okay, later on you actually fetch Gavin's data for him... which helps you in ME3.

 

DA:I had an annoying fetch quest in the Dalish camp: Deliver herbs, pelts and other resources. They don't care where or how you got them, they just want them and in exchange you get some minor rewards. It helps you to win their trust but... I don't know. That's basically faction grinding on top of a fetch quest. -.-

 

ME1 wasn't all that bad. Except for the tedious collections all missions had a backstory, cutscenes, dialogue of some kind... that's a bit more than I'd expect from a fetch quest. Sure, they weren't epic adventures... but I don't think they were all that bad.

 

Personally I thought Mass Effect planet quests occupied an unhappy in between: enough content to function as a resource sink but not enough to leave me as a player with any sense of satisfaction from the experience.

 

Sometimes I half-jokingly suggest that ME1 killed good side quests.  Part of that stems from side quest structure. Other BW games, specifically KotOR and Jade Empire, worked a bit more to integrate side quests into the main world, creating a sense of cohesion. While some of their side quests were about as  lite as ME1, they often didn't require the same level of effort to attain similar amounts of content. In that sense, content density was far superior before ME1, imo. 

 

I can also say the load times on the 360 between getting in and out of the Mako and entering/exiting each individual mercenary base certainly didn't help either. 

[DaemionMoadrin]

Eh, I dunno. Until shards came around scanning 20 keepers was pretty much the worst fetch quest Bio had done. Even then, shards at least had semi-meaningful loot rewards.

 

Scanning the Keepers was another game mechanic meant to make you explore the Citadel. All the Keepers were in spots where you had to go eventually anyway. The mission was also only part of the story, the other part being the Volus asking C-Sec for help because someone wants to kill him.

 

I wouldn't really call it a fetch quest.

[Xerxes52]

I'll add one: No jumping puzzles. Especially when the game doesn't have the controls to make them bearable.

[Sidney]

Scanning the Keepers was another game mechanic meant to make you explore the Citadel. All the Keepers were in spots where you had to go eventually anyway. The mission was also only part of the story, the other part being the Volus asking C-Sec for help because someone wants to kill him.
 
I wouldn't really call it a fetch quest.

Umm no the the keepers clearly weren't all places you had to go since I missed one of them almost every time. Plus, using that argument all fetch quests could be called an exploration mechanic because they all require you to go places.

[Sidney]

I'd like to toss in that being a jerk to squad mates doesn't make me more "renegade". I hate that element of the mechanic (well I don't like that whole mechanic but that part of it seems most offensive).

[In Exile]

Eh, I dunno. Until shards came around scanning 20 keepers was pretty much the worst fetch quest Bio had done. Even then, shards at least had semi-meaningful loot rewards.

Collecting 80 (!!) random minerals by clicking on plants or driving the Mako around aimlessly is - to me - far worse than the Keepers. If you know what you're doing in ME1 you can scan all of the Keepers in one-ish run around the Citadel to get all the pre-Spectre quests.

[DaemionMoadrin]

Umm no the the keepers clearly weren't all places you had to go since I missed one of them almost every time. Plus, using that argument all fetch quests could be called an exploration mechanic because they all require you to go places.

 

I've done that mission a few days ago. Took me about 15 minutes... while I was doing other missions. If you do all the optional content in ME1, you will be at least in the same room with every keeper you need to scan.

[KaiserShep]

Eh, in my first playthrough, I gave up pretty quickly. Some keepers were a bit hidden behind things and I ended up not caring. Of course I eventually got it done, because I'm a quest-fiend and gotta do everything. Plus, you gotta love that stupid congratulatory music that plays when you scan the last one.

[AlanC9]

 
This chart gives good as to how ME3 went completely out of proportion with fetch quest.
 
 

Wow. I though I'd seen the last of that idiotic chart.

("Idiotic" only applies if it's supposed to be a serious analysis. As propaganda, it's not bad.)

[AlanC9]

Collecting 80 (!!) random minerals by clicking on plants or driving the Mako around aimlessly is - to me - far worse than the Keepers. If you know what you're doing in ME1 you can scan all of the Keepers in one-ish run around the Citadel to get all the pre-Spectre quests.

I'm torn. They're both so awful that it's hard to pick one.

[In Exile]

I'm torn. They're both so awful that it's hard to pick one.

The Keepers bothers me less only in that there's (by ME1 standards) good content in most of the areas where I find Keepers (e.g. the Consort Questline, the Med Clinic, Conrad, etc.). Since I mostly have to walk that way anyway, I can save myself a lot of aggravation. Whereas with the UEWs, there's no real reward apart from ME1s awful loot, using the Mako more (and its awful driving controls) and more of ME1s mediocre combat (except now all the enemies are humans, and so they immunity spam you like crazy).

[Daemul]

Never did I think that I would see this bulls**t chart again. It was wrong back when it was created and its wrong now.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I actually agree that most of your points are fair, even if I somewhat disagree, but ME3 kept telling you from the get-go that conventional victory against the Reapers is impossible. It literally tells you this. Every time you get an update about the war condition, you are being told that the Reapers are basically wiping everything out. If people insisted ignoring that when playing the game, I don't think at that point it is a fault from Bioware.

 

I'm not trying to make a lore-y argument for something like CV -- I'm just talking about the conflict between the story and the mechanics. It's not really a logical issue but one about feelings. Take for example, Star Wars Episode II. We are told constantly that Obi-Wan and Anakin are friends, or better yet that Padme and Anakin are in love. These ideas don't stem from how the characters interact with each other but rather through exposition. Logically, they are friends/deep in love but the relationships still feel off to the viewer because of the interactions are so off; due to the stiff acting, flat dialogue, lack of chemistry, etc.

 

ME3's mechanics are similar. It's hard to explain in a quantitative, objective way but basically you have gun mechanics that are designed to destroy large numbers of enemies in spectacular, fun ways. This is a problem because the player's interaction with the Reapers is almost entirely defined across the barrel of a gun, which is designed to be an empowering experience. Most of the game is spent winning because most of the game is spent shooting, and since ME3 is a video game mechanics feel just as strong or even stronger than exposition or text messages. Those things have their place but they lack the visceral punch of all those hundreds of dead Reapers you just mowed through. Even the EMS system doesn't help because from a mechanical perspective it just denotes that the galaxy is getting stronger.

 

Ultimately, it makes the story feel off. It certainly isn't a plot hole or anything like that where you can point at a tangible knot in the story. It is a feeling. And while it doesn't make the galaxy any more winnable without the Crucible it just takes away the tension of the story. Admittedly, the multiplayer is where the bulk of the problems come from.

[AlanC9]

Hundreds of dead Reapers?

[DaemionMoadrin]

Hundreds of dead Reapers?

 

Reaper forces. ^^

[Daemul]

Hundreds of dead Reapers?

I think he's referring to the ground forces.

[KaiserShep]

Hundreds of dead Reapers?

 

I'm suddenly picturing reaper hulks lying around stripped of their valuables and hollowed out, sort of like all the kaiju crap everywhere in Pacific Rim. I can get on board with that. 

[Hiemoth]

Personally I thought Mass Effect planet quests occupied an unhappy in between: enough content to function as a resource sink but not enough to leave me as a player with any sense of satisfaction from the experience.

 

Sometimes I half-jokingly suggest that ME1 killed good side quests.  Part of that stems from side quest structure. Other BW games, specifically KotOR and Jade Empire, worked a bit more to integrate side quests into the main world, creating a sense of cohesion. While some of their side quests were about as  lite as ME1, they often didn't require the same level of effort to attain similar amounts of content. In that sense, content density was far superior before ME1, imo. 

 

I can also say the load times on the 360 between getting in and out of the Mako and entering/exiting each individual mercenary base certainly didn't help either. 

 

I both agree and disagree with this. Not because I think that ME1 had good sidequests, actually when I go back now to play it, I can't help but to notice how simple most of them are which is really connected.

 

However, for me DA2 and ME3 had the best sidequests out of all BW games, which I know many here will disagree with. For me, in both of those cases they used the side quests to really effectively built the main story and, because they could connect to the relevant themes, they were able to really bring life to those side quests. In ME3, because there is this galactic conflict and huge backstory from previous two games, they were able to use that to tell stories of all these people caught up in this conflict. For example, coming face to face with the Batarian terrorist from Sky Is Falling is for me just a moment of such beauty. In DA2, because of the rather unique structure of the main story, they were able to have the sidequests rather touch on the themes of the story itself, telling about devotion, fanaticism, obsession and duty. So while those sidequests were independent, they constantly kept bringing up the main themes of the game.

 

However, DAI was a huge step back, for me, in that regard and I am slightly worried for ME:A. The problem with ME1 sidequests was that they could not be connected to the main story because that wasn't their purpose. Their purpose was to give something to do in these vast spaces created for the game where the main focus was exploration. It is almost impossible to create really good sidequests in that structure, as it needs to be almost completely divorced from the structure and pacing of the main plot because there's no actual idea when the player is going to be there. If, as has been indicated, exploration is again going to be a major factor in ME:A, I genuinly don't see how they can avoid the sidequests hitting having the same fate as DAI and ME1. I hope they don't, as I'd like to enjoy the game, but we will see.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Hundreds of dead Reapers?

 

 

Woops. Usually when I think of Reapers I think of the Reaper faction, not necessarily the actual space ships.

 

[Hiemoth]

I'm not trying to make a lore-y argument for something like CV -- I'm just talking about the conflict between the story and the mechanics. It's not really a logical issue but one about feelings. Take for example, Star Wars Episode II. We are told constantly that Obi-Wan and Anakin are friends, or better yet that Padme and Anakin are in love. These ideas don't stem from how the characters interact with each other but rather through exposition. Logically, they are friends/deep in love but the relationships still feel off to the viewer because of the interactions are so off; due to the stiff acting, flat dialogue, lack of chemistry, etc.

 

ME3's mechanics are similar. It's hard to explain in a quantitative, objective way but basically you have gun mechanics that are designed to destroy large numbers of enemies in spectacular, fun ways. This is a problem because the player's interaction with the Reapers is almost entirely defined across the barrel of a gun, which is designed to be an empowering experience. Most of the game is spent winning because most of the game is spent shooting, and since ME3 is a video game mechanics feel just as strong or even stronger than exposition or text messages. Those things have their place but they lack the visceral punch of all those hundreds of dead Reapers you just mowed through. Even the EMS system doesn't help because from a mechanical perspective it just denotes that the galaxy is getting stronger.

 

Ultimately, it makes the story feel off. It certainly isn't a plot hole or anything like that where you can point at a tangible knot in the story. It is a feeling. And while it doesn't make the galaxy any more winnable without the Crucible it just takes away the tension of the story. Admittedly, the multiplayer is where the bulk of the problems come from.

 

I actually think this is a very fair argument, even though I felt it missed core component. I felt differentely, but that is because every story beat is subjective to a degree. For example, in ME3, for me the story managed to convey that feeling of desperation and scraping by brilliantly. When I was on the Turian moon, what the story told me was how desperately they were fending off Reaper forces, not how many Husks did I shoot. When I was walking through the Asari monastery, I felt the imposing force of the Banshees, not how many husks I shot. When I returned to the Citadel, I saw the utter destruction caused by the Cerberus forces, not how many of those soldiers I shot. And so forth.

 

I don't think anybody can tell someone which story elements affect them or not. For example, I've never been that impressed by either FO:NV or PoE, both of them being good games for me, but just kind of bland in their stories. Yet other people swear by them. And while I do think that through discussion one might grow to appreciate or dislike certain story elements, ultimately it will always a personal experience, and thus games like ME3, or DA2 for that matter, will always be divise in this matter because they so utterly rely on that atmosphere in their stories.

 

What I do, however have an issue with, is if those story elements are completely ignored in the discussion, so for example claiming that none of that story was told at all instead of saying that it just didn't work the player, or arguing that that personal experience is somehow the universal standard. Hence, if the story felt off to a single player, it must have been an universal truth.

[SolNebula]

The worst mistake they made is creating such a powerful antagonistic faction that the only way to win is a space magic device that kills you.

[Dean_the_Young]

Scanning the Keepers was another game mechanic meant to make you explore the Citadel. All the Keepers were in spots where you had to go eventually anyway. The mission was also only part of the story, the other part being the Volus asking C-Sec for help because someone wants to kill him.

 

I wouldn't really call it a fetch quest.

 

That doesn't really make sense. A fetch quest is about structure- not about what else it helps you do.

 

Especially since that exact same argument can be applied to the ME3 fetch quests, which were a mechanic to make you explore the non-essential solar systems which were in quadrants you'd eventually go anyway. You can also argue they tied into the story, since they not only affected EMS (which determined both number and quality of end-game options) but were a way to get more of the lore from both planet text and the EMS flavor lore descriptions.

 

Not calling Keeper Scans a fetch quest because you didn't mind it is the same nonsense that was in the chart. At this point, all you're doing is pleading the exception because you like it more.

[ManOfSteel]

Player equipment featured in cutscenes is an absolute must. I have an Assault Rifle. I do not need a custcene Avenger. Get that thing outta here.

[BabyPuncher]

Player equipment featured in cutscenes is an absolute must. I have an Assault Rifle. I do not need a custcene Avenger. Get that thing outta here.

 

It's an 'absolute must' that almost absolutely ain't gonna happen.

 

Do players realize how silly and immature this kind of thing comes off as?