121 réponses à ce sujet

[Vox Draco]

I fear that Andromeda will be ... too much like DAI in terms of quests. Which means filled with little meaningless side-missions that bear no weight to it, do not get you immeresed etc. Though it had interesting little stories to tell. Stuff like the temple frozen in time was amazing, telling a little story in our own minds mostly as we walk through the enemies frozen in time while still in combat. Stuff like that I hope to see more

 

Less I want MMO-style "quests" that start by picking up letters (or the sci-fi equivalent ^^ and no, eavesdroppng doesn't count either, ME3!). 

 

Overall, even Witcher 3 is not the way to go for me. All those Witcher-contracts were basically the same as well, just with dialogue, but following the same structure again and again. I didn't bother anymore after half a dozen or so.

 

So side-quests, yeah. But I'd like longer, fleshed out ones, that lead us through areas just like main-quests do. Less trivial stuff, more interesting meaningful stuff to do. And with various outcomes based on your decisions along the way...

 

And in the end we'll get some giant empty planets where we drive around, scan minerals to craft stupid shite and get mission-updates on the screen like "Senator XY wants us to kill 500 Xsylleri-Warriors" ... I am not in a very positive mood right now ^^

[vbibbi]

I fear that Andromeda will be ... too much like DAI in terms of quests. Which means filled with little meaningless side-missions that bear no weight to it, do not get you immeresed etc. Though it had interesting little stories to tell. Stuff like the temple frozen in time was amazing, telling a little story in our own minds mostly as we walk through the enemies frozen in time while still in combat. Stuff like that I hope to see more

 

Less I want MMO-style "quests" that start by picking up letters (or the sci-fi equivalent ^^ and no, eavesdroppng doesn't count either, ME3!). 

 

Overall, even Witcher 3 is not the way to go for me. All those Witcher-contracts were basically the same as well, just with dialogue, but following the same structure again and again. I didn't bother anymore after half a dozen or so.

 

So side-quests, yeah. But I'd like longer, fleshed out ones, that lead us through areas just like main-quests do. Less trivial stuff, more interesting meaningful stuff to do. And with various outcomes based on your decisions along the way...

 

And in the end we'll get some giant empty planets where we drive around, scan minerals to craft stupid shite and get mission-updates on the screen like "Senator XY wants us to kill 500 Xsylleri-Warriors" ... I am not in a very positive mood right now ^^

Yeah TW3 contracts were often similar, but there were a few other side quests which I think were good. I'm primarily thinking of the frost giant one and subsequent Skellige ruler quest, the gwent tournament, the Radovid quest, and the Novigrad murders quest. None of these were required to advance the main story, but some of them had an impact on the endings, whether we did them or not, and how we completed them if we did them. I like this method of side quest.

[wright1978]

What? Eden Prime is not at all like Horizon. You got Ashley, who is both terrified and guilt ridden over the geth attack (and just during the mission but for the rest of the game or even the trilogy). You got the scientists, one of which is shaken up, the other went all out crazy (Manuel), you got the two farmers who are scared to death by Sovereign's weird noises, you got Cole, the dockworker, who got caught by surprise during his nap. You even got exposition prior to the mission from Jenkins who grew up on that planet, gives you an impression of what it was like before the attack, is shocked when he sees what happened and gets killed in an ambush.
 
So more than enough peasant perspectives to give you an impression how scary these attacks are if you are not a super-commando here and that's just for one little mission, not about the entire main plot. I am not saying that Eden Prime was perfect (it was one of the weakest main missions of the game, next to Therum IMO) but how is that even comparable?
 

Yea, Kelly Chambers also tells us how awful it was to be trapped in the collector pod (if you rescue her). But that's after we already finished the plot. It's a bit late to build up the enemy when you already thoroughly stomped them into the ground.

Can't say meeting a couple of random farmers, a mechanic and some preamble from Jenkins and a soldier stationed there really fostered a connection with Eden prime for me anymore than horizon preamble, a pre attack vid, meeting a mechanic twice & the presence of a alliance soldier did. Don't think a quick chat with some other colonists would have done much either. The only real way to build that connection is to spend time there beforehand and then later come back & see the aftermath. In serenity the impact of haven's destruction is better because we have seen the crew spending time there earlier in the film. Perhaps they should have put kaidan/ash elsewhere, situated the Cerberus lab on horizon and have recovering shep spending time with colonists incognito rather than the space lab shoutout intro.

[MrFob]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree. I do think that getting the perspective on a situation from multiple angles does make a difference and I do think that at least some of these people need to be relatalbe (which IMO disqualifies that mechanic, Ash/Kaidan have no connection to Horizon whatsoever in their dialogue, so they don't really count in that regard anyway).

 

I do agree that seeing the place in a "default" state and getting to know people there is better (hence my comment that Eden Prime is one of the weaker missions in ME1), but I do acknowledge that this much exposition may not be feasible for every mission. But if you cannot have that, at least give me some perspective from the victims of my enemy to at least built him/it up. This happens on Eden Prime for Saren/Sovereign. It does not happen on Horizon. The majority of that mechanics dialogue is less about the collectors and more about how the Alliance (the space of which he left on purpose) screwed him over by not helping enough.

[AlanC9]

We see what happened to Horizon. Why do we need NPCs telling us about what we saw?

[Lavros]

As has been said before I think they should stay away from the MMO-style quest of DAI. I would rather have higher quality quests that relate to the area at hand with better interaction with the locals. They need to have face-to-face interaction between the npc and pc that just isn't conveyed as well with the distant over the shoulder shot that is so predominate with the side quests of DAI.

 

I also think a combination of hub styled areas and linear areas would be appropriate based on the needs of the story for the game. The pendulum just doesn't need to swing too far in either direction. A central hub like the citadel of ME 1 with the changing nature of ME3's citadel would be more preferable than the elevator partitioned version we experienced at the end of the trilogy. 

 

I don't think there is an exact formula to make it work but I do think the right direction is to move towards areas that have well developed stories, that are not based on gimmicks, and have sub plots that are interesting and resolve satisfactorily in the area or are a small part of an arc that spans a larger portion of the game.  

[Mcfly616]

I have actually paid some attention during the numerous times I've played through ME1 and as was already pointed out there, there's almost nothing to most of the stuff posted here as an 'arc'. Most of ME3 side quests have more content and dialogue than any of the arcs pointed out here, and that is even ignoring the fact that the argument presented here seems to ignore what a mission arc is as  it lists both Biotic Extremism and Geth attacks as arcs despite the fact that they are completely independent missions that don't affect each other at all. Or the fact that the Cerberus arc is handled similarly with bundling together missions that werent at all connected the main Cerberus arc. The two arcs I do admit is the shorter Cerberus arc and the Rachni arc, but again, there is very little there. They are literally go to the generic map, drive to a base (Or in one case a space station) and kill everything without dialogue.

 Quantity of content aside, ME1's UNC missions had an actual arc (whether it be crime bosses taking out competition, biotic extremists, Space pirates etc), instead of the shooting gallery ME3 provided us with the wave-based N7 missions, lacking any real narrative at all other than "colonists are under attack and/or we need this data before the enemy gets it".

 

However cookie cutter the environment, or lacking the content, UNC missions actually helped establish the make-up of the fictional universe. They showed the ways of the world.  Whereas ME2 had us run through claustrophobic facilities to kill mercs and get a " Mission Complete" summary screen and ME3 had us survive a few waves of enemies to get some war assets.

[Luke Pearce]

that depend, exploring need to be balance with story, same as reason to explore.

 

That is my main problem with games like Witcher 3, where they give me a HUGE map to explore and most of the map is empty, and points to explore and just chest or monster dents.

 

For me ME2 with a more focus on story idea of exploration make a excellent job, and to a lesser but not bad extend ME 3 did it great too.

 

I know alot of ppl didnt like DA I, but i love the idea of exploring all those different regions, and that the maps werent that big that i was stuck there forever. LOL i got tired of Novigrad really easy on Witcher 3.

 

So im really exited to see where ME Andromeda took the exploration/story

 

Witcher 3 did have 'major sidequests' which were great! However, I explored all of Novigrad and couldn't be effed to do the same with Skellige. I do think it was better than DA:I.

 

With that said, these open-world games lose their replayability. I played through ME1 three times, ME2 six times, KOTOR more times I can count, DA:O about 3 times and ME3 twice. However good GTAV, Witcher 3, DA:I is though it's too much of a chore to play through again.

 

I prefer large, yet confined areas like Illium, Omega, Presidium Ring, Taris etc. that offer room for exploration without making it a chore to get anywhere. Dragon Age: Inquisition was basically 10 open-world maps with lots of loading and respawning enemies and stuff. Hell just get rid of respawning enemies and that would help! Will Mass Effect Andromeda be like the former or the latter? Time will tell.

[Chealec]

 Quantity of content aside, ME1's UNC missions had an actual arc (whether it be crime bosses taking out competition, biotic extremists, Space pirates etc), instead of the shooting gallery ME3 provided us with the wave-based N7 missions, lacking any real narrative at all other than "colonists are under attack and/or we need this data before the enemy gets it".

 

However cookie cutter the environment, or lacking the content, UNC missions actually helped establish the make-up of the fictional universe. They showed the ways of the world.  Whereas ME2 had us run through claustrophobic facilities to kill mercs and get a " Mission Complete" summary screen and ME3 had us survive a few waves of enemies to get some war assets.

 

The N7 missions in ME3 were a bit like "Well the MP team have made these assets, we may as well shoe-horn them into the SP game I suppose" - would have been better if they'd done them more like the UNC: Cerberus missions in ME1 so there was at least a little story arc and progression; one mission revealing the next and so on. Even if they were the same sort of wave-based shooting galleries - basically the Cerberus missions in ME1 were "go here, shoot that and report back" there wasn't a great deal of depth to them but there was just enough to make them feel like a more "complete" story.

[Iakus]

The N7 missions in ME3 were a bit like "Well the MP team have made these assets, we may as well shoe-horn them into the SP game I suppose"

That's exactly what they felt like.

 

Which is why I LOL at the assertion that MP adds to SP

[Vox Draco]

Witcher 3 did have 'major sidequests' which were great! However, I explored all of Novigrad and couldn't be effed to do the same with Skellige. I do think it was better than DA:I.

 

With that said, these open-world games lose their replayability. I played through ME1 three times, ME2 six times, KOTOR more times I can count, DA:O about 3 times and ME3 twice. However good GTAV, Witcher 3, DA:I is though it's too much of a chore to play through again.

 

I prefer large, yet confined areas like Illium, Omega, Presidium Ring, Taris etc. that offer room for exploration without making it a chore to get anywhere. Dragon Age: Inquisition was basically 10 open-world maps with lots of loading and respawning enemies and stuff. Hell just get rid of respawning enemies and that would help! Will Mass Effect Andromeda be like the former or the latter? Time will tell.

 

I agree to some degree ... Though in contrast to Witcher 3 (abandoned it due to being unimpressed by "Finding Ciri-quest) after reaching Skellige. REcently tried again to get into it but...dunno, maybe another year has to pass for me to enjoy Witcher 3 as others did. But DAI is truly a chore as you say.

 

This obsession with Open world and what comes with it (like crafting *shudder*) really pains me. I liked Skyrim, Fallout, but does really every game try to be like that? Being somewhat linear has its pros, you know that devs? As in, well, Witcher 2 told its story way more tight and interesting, while TW3 is all over the place and never gripped me. Same with Dragon Age Origins and even DA2 in regards to Inquisition. 

 

A more linear game is NOT a dumb-game ... at least not to me...

[MrFob]

That's exactly what they felt like.

Which is why I LOL at the assertion that MP adds to SP

That's true and I don't think there is anything at all wrong with it. In fact, I think it's a great idea to use these recourses and give them to SP players as well, especially since the cost is minimal. As someone who doesn't play MP, I was happy to get a chance to see the maps and get to have some small missions on them. I wish they had also made N7 missions for all the add-on maps that MP got later (although I see why they could not do it).

Even though this may not have been clear from my earlier posts, I have absolutely nothing against small throw-away missions (also liked the N7 missions in ME2. However, while they are definitely a nice addition to the game, that same game still needs proper content in the main quest (and also in more elaborate side quests). It's why I don't complain about the fairly repetitive witcher contracts in Witcher 3 because they were there in addition to a lot of main and side constant that was very carefully crafted to tell brilliant stories. If I can get both, well than hurray! If I have to choose, I'd loose the smaller side content first and rather keep less missions with a more fleshed out story and characters.

And this was the problem of ME2. I am not complaining about the addition of N7 missions, I am complaining about the lack of careful story telling in the main missions.
 

We see what happened to Horizon. Why do we need NPCs telling us about what we saw?

It's not about them telling us what we saw, it's about them telling us HOW they saw the same thing from their perspective, how they react and to make us react to that in return. We don't know Horizon, we don't know anyone there (except Ash/Kaidan and they are not connected to the colony or the attack at all, we might as well have met them on the Citadel, it would have been the same). We don't have a relation to the place. We are just there to fight the collectors and to save faceless and nameless people. If we had the perspective from someone who lives there (and who comes across as genuine, so not that mechanic) and who can relate their much more connected and in-depth feelings and concerns to us, then we are no longer just there for the enemy or a number (of people) but those people can (if it's done well) get a face that might actually mean more to us.

 

Imagine that in Dragon Age Origins, you'd arrive in Redcliffe just before the attack starts. You get one villiger coming up to you, quickly explaining the situation in two sentences and then you get to fight the darkspawn. This is perfectly doable (and in fact, 90% of video games would probably have done it like that). You could even keep the mechanic where you fight with the villagers and you can loose them if you are not careful. You see the same, get the same information and ultimately have the same outcome. But it simply wouldn't have the same impact because you don't know who you are fighting with or what the relevance of that the villige you are defending is beyond a quest goal and maybe a tactical asset for the war against the blight.

 

What I am saying is that this exposition is important because having a context to what you fight for or to who the characters in a plot are increases the intensity of the fight/plot, it's simply more effective storytelling. Yes, you CAN just show the bare minimum of important stuff (as was done on Horizon) to convey all the relevant information. But now you are thinking in terms of what's necessary, not in terms of what's possible. I don't think this is a good way for a writer to approach his own story. As a writer, you have endless possibilities, it's up to you to come up with the best way to portray the story that you want to bring to the audience. If you want to write a story about fighting a force that relentlessly abducts defenseless colonists, is the best way to approach this really to show exactly one of them and to have that one barely even talk about the issue that your story is about?

 

I know that video games are not known for their great story telling as a whole and may have other priorities but BW especially marketed themselves as being special in the industry exactly because of their expertise and focus on this facet of games. I play their games because of I want the experience to be told a great interactive story while playing a game, so if they screw it up, it irks me more than if it happens in other random games (and it happens a lot).

[Chealec]

That's exactly what they felt like.

 

Which is why I LOL at the assertion that MP adds to SP

 

Yeah - but if the ME3MP maps had been better handled when taken into SP, they could have added something; not a huge amount perhaps - one minor side-story at best - but something. At least the new maps could have been better than the recycled or virtually identical locations of those in DA:2 or ME:1... if woven into a little minor story arc.

 

Having never played DA:I though, I have to sort of wonder how the combat works in the SP game... whether it's better or worse for being (apparently) designed to be MP-friendly in the first place. Whether that's an instance where MP has actually helped or hindered the SP game.

[vbibbi]

Yeah - but if the ME3MP maps had been better handled when taken into SP, they could have added something; not a huge amount perhaps - one minor side-story at best - but something. At least the new maps could have been better than the recycled or virtually identical locations of those in DA:2 or ME:1... if woven into a little minor story arc.

 

Having never played DA:I though, I have to sort of wonder how the combat works in the SP game... whether it's better or worse for being (apparently) designed to be MP-friendly in the first place. Whether that's an instance where MP has actually helped or hindered the SP game.

The most noticeable affect MP had on SP in DAI was that we are limited to 8 active abilities, regardless of PC, PS or Xbox. There is no longer an ability wheel where we can choose any of the abilities we've learned. This was so that they didn't have to develop two separate combat mechanics for SP and MP, since MP doesn't have a pause function or character screen in which to select abilities.

[Iakus]

Yeah - but if the ME3MP maps had been better handled when taken into SP, they could have added something; not a huge amount perhaps - one minor side-story at best - but something. At least the new maps could have been better than the recycled or virtually identical locations of those in DA:2 or ME:1... if woven into a little minor story arc.

 

Having never played DA:I though, I have to sort of wonder how the combat works in the SP game... whether it's better or worse for being (apparently) designed to be MP-friendly in the first place. Whether that's an instance where MP has actually helped or hindered the SP game.

DAI combat is very Diablo-esque, imo.  Lots of hack & slash, very little tactics.

 

Make of that what you will.

[Sanunes]

The most noticeable affect MP had on SP in DAI was that we are limited to 8 active abilities, regardless of PC, PS or Xbox. There is no longer an ability wheel where we can choose any of the abilities we've learned. This was so that they didn't have to develop two separate combat mechanics for SP and MP, since MP doesn't have a pause function or character screen in which to select abilities.

 

Just because those two things changed in one game doesn't mean one is the cause for the other.

 

People have been asking for controller support for the PC for BioWare games for a long time now, it could be just as possible they limited the number of abilities for the PC to accommodate that option.

[vbibbi]

Just because those two things changed in one game doesn't mean one is the cause for the other.

 

People have been asking for controller support for the PC for BioWare games for a long time now, it could be just as possible they limited the number of abilities for the PC to accommodate that option.

I don't know how PC controller effect may change gameplay, but my PS3 version of DAO and DA2 allowed for an abilities wheel so that I could use all abilities rather than 8. If Bio decided to implement a combat restriction for a portion of players requesting this feature in one fifth of their game market, that doesn't seem to be good business sense. Or logical.

[Sanunes]

I don't know how PC controller effect may change gameplay, but my PS3 version of DAO and DA2 allowed for an abilities wheel so that I could use all abilities rather than 8. If Bio decided to implement a combat restriction for a portion of players requesting this feature in one fifth of their game market, that doesn't seem to be good business sense. Or logical.

 

I didn't realize how the console version worked, but I don't think multiplayer influenced the controls since they changed the controls for multiplayer to only being four where in singleplayer you have more then that.

[ZipZap2000]

The old Bioware. Remember when EA wanted to turn them into The Witcher, before they changed their tune into the current "intersectional feminism" that now devs hurry to add to their twitter descriptions? That was an interesting phase.

That clip suddenly has me interested in DA:O again.

[Linkenski]

I fear that Andromeda will be ... too much like DAI in terms of quests. 

I'm totally prejudiced here, but I have no doubt it will and that's why I can't get that excited for it.

 

...which is why I can't wait until it comes out and totally proves me wrong and makes exhilarated and reinvigorated with life for the fact that Mass Effect is back and oh my god this game is amazing (...in my dreams...)

[Bowlcuts]

 Quantity of content aside, ME1's UNC missions had an actual arc (whether it be crime bosses taking out competition, biotic extremists, Space pirates etc), instead of the shooting gallery ME3 provided us with the wave-based N7 missions, lacking any real narrative at all other than "colonists are under attack and/or we need this data before the enemy gets it".

 

However cookie cutter the environment, or lacking the content, UNC missions actually helped establish the make-up of the fictional universe. They showed the ways of the world.  Whereas ME2 had us run through claustrophobic facilities to kill mercs and get a " Mission Complete" summary screen and ME3 had us survive a few waves of enemies to get some war assets.

 

Yep, exactly. 

I wouldn't of known absolutely anything about Cerberus or have any sort of prejudiced behavior if I didn't do that UNC: Hades' Dogs quest or the Colony of The Dead.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

One of the things that changed with Bioware games in the EA Era, is how missions are handled. Back before ME2, the missions you went on weren't just levels, they were entire arcs that took place in giant areas. Nowadays when you go on a main story mission, it just takes you immediately to the area, you go through some corridors, kill some bad guys, and after about 30 minutes to an hour you're done with the mission and taken back to your main hub.

I miss how missions used to take place in huge hubs, where you'd meet all kinds of new people, delve into politics, explore the town/encampment, shop at stores, and then eventually get to a section of the hub where you enter the bad guy's hideout. Because this approach didn't just make the missions feel like, a mission. It felt like an entire story, within a story. Each of these missions had their own feel and theme to them, and really felt like you were getting to explore and learn more about the universe the game took place in.

I have so many great memories of Noveria, Tatooine, Manaan, The Brecilian Forest, etc. I'm not saying none of modern Bioware missions are great, but with the exception of just a couple, they haven't left an impact on me like they used to. I feel like the old approach to missions worked best for these type of games.

I agree. This is a big flaw in Dragon Age: Inquisition, and of course the later ME games.