229 réponses à ce sujet

[Malthier]

Hey Malthier ....! 

 

hey macdeath. you navigating through this batshit insanity alright? 

[SNascimento]

ME1 did have side stories like that.  ME2 did not.  They were largely corridors where a lot of shooting went on, some covnersation was had, we go back to the Normandy, and that's the end of it.  I want side stories that make us visit several different locales, pursue leads, talk to lots of people. 

ME2 had those too. There were a few side quests that were more than one mission that told a bigger narrative. If I remember correctly there was one for each merc group. The difference was that in ME1 the maps were copy and paste, while in ME2 each missions had a unique level.

About the type of missions you are asking, we had plenty of those in ME2 in the form of recruitment and loyalty missions.

[SentinelMacDeath]

hey macdeath. you navigating through this batshit insanity alright? 

 

At least I'm trying! 

 

I still like you! 

[capn233]

ME2 had those too. There were a few side quests that were more than one mission that told a bigger narrative. If I remember correctly there was one for each merc group. The difference was that in ME1 the maps were copy and paste, while in ME2 each missions had a unique level.

About the type of missions you are asking, we had plenty of those in ME2 in the form of recruitment and loyalty missions.

 

Blue Suns - Archeological Dig Site -> Strontium Mule -> Blue Suns Base

 

Javelin Missiles Launched is sort of related.

 

Blood Pack - Blood Pack Communications Relay -> Blood Pack Base

 

Eclipse - Captured Mining Facility

 

Eclipse only really had one since the rest of the arc was scrapped.  That's why there is news about the ship Ter Alan, and information is decrypted about it in that mission, but nothing ever comes about it.

 

Otherwise the only N7 side mission arc besides Firewalker was the mech one:

 

Wrecked Merchant Freighter -> Abandoned Research Station -> Hahne-Kedar Facility

[Il Divo]

ME2 had those too. There were a few side quests that were more than one mission that told a bigger narrative. If I remember correctly there was one for each merc group. The difference was that in ME1 the maps were copy and paste, while in ME2 each missions had a unique level.

About the type of missions you are asking, we had plenty of those in ME2 in the form of recruitment and loyalty missions.

 

Personally, I feel somewhere in between. I was not a fan of the ME2 side quests in any capacity (other than the loyalty missions which were fantastic), but I also think that Mass Effect 1 pushed us much, much farther towards bad sidequests than ME2 did, at least compared to KotOR and Jade Empire. 

 

The Citadel quests weren't too bad on the whole, but pretty much everything involving planet exploration in ME1 fell flat (imo): the story arcs, the repetitive format, the lack of diversity, etc. 

[rossler]

Varied outcomes, both good and bad, rather than multicolored "bittersweet" railroading: I believe Mass Effect could have more of that, but this feel just an opportunity to remark about the endings that a valid criticism. Tuchanka and Rannoch are excellent examples of what I believe you're asking here.

 

Mass Effect 3's ending has this. The low EMS endings are the bad endings, and the higher EMS endings are the better endings. There just isn't any beat the Reapers without any consequences "perfect" ending, like they had in ME2. Where you could get everyone to survive the suicide mission if you played your cards right.

 

Each ending has pros and cons. Hence, it being bittersweet.

 

It's a step forward from ME2, rather than a step back, the way I see it

[Gothfather]

That's a little hyperbolic.  Vanilla game tactics have various problems, although certainly they are lightyears ahead of DAI's half assed tactics.  In either case most of what allows the game to play itself is leveling the character and getting decent gear.  Regardless, dumbing down control in an attempt to make a game harder is a poor decision.

 

No it is not. The tactics system allows you to determine when you heal, when you cast a spell, what enemies to target in what condition. You can target people with specific attacks under specific conditions like range, class, status effect like sleep and so on. The amount of health they have and so on.  It was a terrible system because it is too comprehensive you can literally start a fight and leave and win. Without ever being part of the combat. You don't need to be over levelled and tweaked with gear for this to happen. And lets just say for argument sake you are right you need to be tweaked with gear to win that still is proof positive that the DA:O tactics system was crap. It should ALWAYS be impossible to start a fight, leave for a coffee and return to pick up your loot. No game should EVER be able to play itself in an RPG combat scenario. If it can then the systems in place ate ultimately FLAWED. Games are interactive they are not passive ergo you should never be able to tweak the controls to allow you to be passive in combat. 

 

The tactics system wasn't control for the player, the player is giving up control to the computer. The "attempt" isn't to make the game harder the actual successful implementation was to REMOVE the ability of the player to be hand off in combat. No game should be designed whatever the systems to allows the computer to play as an unintended consequence of the systems at work. The Origins tactic system was never intended to be a "hand free" mode of the game, not like you can activate in some strategy titles. It was intended to compensate for poor NPC AI. Yet it was too good, too effective, it no longer was compensating it was actually playing. DA:I tactics system is an example of a well developed and intelligent system because it is LIMITED. You can not program your party to fight a battle you can only program them to assist you in a more specified manner than the vanilla Ai. Or getting the Ai to approach combat based on X combat style vs telling the AI what exact tactics everyone uses so you don't have to tell them to do anything in actual combat. Which is exactly what a tactics system shouldn't do. Assist you the player not be a "fire and forget" combat simulator.  

[capn233]

No it is not. The tactics system allows you to determine when you heal, when you cast a spell, what enemies to target in what condition. You can target people with specific attacks under specific conditions like range, class, status effect like sleep and so on. The amount of health they have and so on.

On a very basic level this is what it does. Saving some micro on tanks was the biggest benefit with tactics in the default game since they didn't need to do much other than heal, throw a taunt, and then shield bash now and then. It was mediocre for rogues, and pretty poor for mages. Automating heal spells or some defense spells was fine, but it was extremely poor for any AOE. Nevermind that the efficiency is low and there is no real target prioritization.

It was a terrible system because it is too comprehensive you can literally start a fight and leave and win.

Except that this isn't really true.

You don't need to be over levelled and tweaked with gear for this to happen.

This should be easily testable. What are the builds and tactics settings to get through Korcari Wilds while getting a cup of coffee?

DA:I tactics system is an example of a well developed and intelligent system because it is LIMITED.

It was not well developed, nor particularly intelligent. It was marginally better than nothing. In a game where you can always pause to issue orders, neither implementation was much of a "competitive advantage" in the grand scheme of things.

Tactics are a form of control since in neither case the game preselected intelligent tactics settings, those required player input.

This is largely moot as it relates to Mass Effect, since it isn't even in the same genre as Dragon Age.

[In Exile]

This maybe be a bit of a nitpick, but surely you mean the RPGs of the 2000s? They all came out then. Well, I suppose if you nitpick PST: was mid-Dec. 1999 and BG2 was very early 2000. 

[LinksOcarina]

This maybe be a bit of a nitpick, but surely you mean the RPGs of the 2000s? They all came out then. Well, I suppose if you nitpick PST: was mid-Dec. 1999 and BG2 was very early 2000. 

 

Weird time to nitpick man....

[In Exile]

Weird time to nitpick man....

 

I don't have the energy for this nonsense debate again. I just find it weird we always refer to it as the "90s" when really it was like... 98-2002 or so, i.e., the exact period of time a substantial portion of gamers were young, first introduced to games, and had their tastes crystalize. 

[Iakus]

Blue Suns - Archeological Dig Site -> Strontium Mule -> Blue Suns Base

 

Javelin Missiles Launched is sort of related.

 

Blood Pack - Blood Pack Communications Relay -> Blood Pack Base

 

Eclipse - Captured Mining Facility

 

Eclipse only really had one since the rest of the arc was scrapped.  That's why there is news about the ship Ter Alan, and information is decrypted about it in that mission, but nothing ever comes about it.

 

Otherwise the only N7 side mission arc besides Firewalker was the mech one:

 

Wrecked Merchant Freighter -> Abandoned Research Station -> Hahne-Kedar Facility

I had completely forgotten about these missions.  But while they do let you visit various locations, they were totally forgettable to me, as there is virtually no dialogue or choices being made (okay the javelin missiles has one choice, but it doesn't amount to anything), it's simply shooting gallery after shooting gallery.  Might as well be gathering ram meat while I'm at it.

[AlanC9]

I don't have the energy for this nonsense debate again. I just find it weird we always refer to it as the "90s" when really it was like... 98-2002 or so, i.e., the exact period of time a substantial portion of gamers were young, first introduced to games, and had their tastes crystalize.

Yeah. Tastes in music work like that too.

[AlanC9]

ME1 did have side stories like that.  ME2 did not.  They were largely corridors where a lot of shooting went on, some covnersation was had, we go back to the Normandy, and that's the end of it.  I want side stories that make us visit several different locales, pursue leads, talk to lots of people. 

I'm not sure how ME2 gets there without either losing a couple of squadmates, a total redesign, or a fantasy budget. The RM/LM structure locks in a relatively large number of medium-sized missions that really can't be tied together much without straining credibility. ME3 has a somewhat different problem, but ended up burning through a lot more wordcount than the earlier games did while still failing to give you as many dialogue options as you would have liked.

[ioannisdenton]

Heck the dialogue wheel needs to actually be a wheel.  Rather than a triangle.

hahaha do not forget the FORK in me3

[ioannisdenton]

Oh for frak sake.

 

You know what really pisses me off is that Every fraking time a game is released people say the exact same fraking thing the earlier title was better. People said Morrowind was a piece of crap with tiny dungeons because Bethesda was appealing to the graphics crowd not the RPG crowd. When BG2 was released people said the original was better now most people think the second is better. KOTOR sucked because it wasn't an isometric game and Bioware was throwing away its legacy to again appeal to the lowest common dominator. Now Kotor is considered one of the best RPGs ever made and the definitive star wars game.  There is a consistence theme that results in when a game is released it is panned by the crowd that goes on and on about how great games where in the past. A decade rolls around and suddenly all those games that were panned on release are held up as shiny examples of great RPGs of the past.

 

Hell even games that i don't consider good are finding new support like DA2. I am seeing more posts and threads praising it as a game this past year then I saw in 2014. The pattern of talking sh!t about a new title and then seeing said title praised is so common with gamers that I no longer give any credence to people who make blanket statements about RPGs of the past.

 

I think that some past RPGs where great.

 

Vampire the masquerade: Bloodlines - This had the best precognitive moment in any RPG I every played. It was masterfully done and when you first play the game you are very likely to miss it. It also tackled mature themes that was not at all common on its release. It seemed to have an understanding of the goth/punk scene and was pretty good a portraying it in a game. If it wasn't for some game breaking bugs I would play this game more often.

 

KOTOR - had one of the most satisfying endings for an RPG I have every played.

 

BG2 - was a delight to discover for the first time and was very replayable (Except that starting dungeon OMG that was tiresome)

 

Oblivion - had the single best RPG experience that would likely never be duplicated by another player because I intended to be a mage but the guild didn't want me and sent me off to get recommendations. The first guild leader i went to see to get a recommendation tried to kill me so I roleplayed a character that said 'forget this  I am out of here if you don't want me' and decided to become a gladiator. They laughed at me and belittled me not making me feel all that welcome but I proved myself and progressed. Which ended with me killing the Champion and people all hating me in for it so I left. And it was because of a bug that killing the champion if you solved  a side quest in a given way it was considered a murder i was recruited by the brotherhood that wanted me to be a member of their family of assassins. They actually wanted me to join them. It was a synergy that couldn't be duplicated unless you played a character desperately seeking to belong to a group and who just happened to have picked the two guilds that in an order that resulted in them treating me like crap at the start and end for the arena quest arc. I really enjoyed that and this was my first game of oblivion so it will always have a greater impact for me then morrowind ever will. Even though I really enjoyed morrowind. Again not something that most player would experience as you'd have to have teh same character concept and had to have made the same choices I did to end up with this great feeling of acceptance and belonging. The general concept was I became a hero because I was insecure and wanted to belong, wanted people to like me.

 

Planescape: Torment - One of the best stories in an RPG ever. The best one where you have amnesia by far.

 

Yet i have also found more modern RPGs just as enjoyable

 

Dragon Age: origins - I think this is the single best IP in fantasy period. I think it is far superior to the Elder scrolls as an IP because it feels far more realistic in its design. Its religions feel more accurate, the politics seems to have more depth. I think both IPS handle history quite well however in that what we the character learn is often contradictory at best or utterly false. We learn history as it is taught not history as fact in both IPs.

 

ME1 - I still find this game magical because of Jennifer Hale. Giving me a voice made my character so much more real to me. This game forever change how i would view all RPGs past and present.

 

Skyrim - One of the best examples for me of filling the RPG exploration itch. With all the mods I use i can become so immersed in this game.

 

FO4 - The first Bethesda title where I saw them writing emotional scenes, creating complex companions and finally i have a fallout game where my characters don't end up all the same because i maxed out all my skills at 100. It is so nice to be able to create a character that isn't a boxing champ with a low str or a can sell ice in the artic with a 1 charisma. Or talk my way out of a any situation when i have all the charisma of a dog turd. It is so nice to actually require a high special stat to do certain things that are not some one off check in the story. You can't be a expert hacker with low intelligence any more. It has made character builds actually mean something beyond the first 10-12 levels.  

 

Witcher 3 - I love this game and it is one of the few games that actually has unintended consequences for choices.

 

Dragon age: Inquisition - I really enjoyed political/religious angle of the story and while I think it fell flat in many areas. It is one of the few RPGs that i enjoyed both the story and the combat. One of my main complaints with DA:O (which i love) was that the tactics system SUCKED. It was so detailed that if you had half a brain you could start combat go make a cup of coffee and return to collect loot. Any mechanic that lets the game play itself is an epic fail. No game should be able to play itself, it should REQUIRE the player to play. Not so Origins with the tactics system. DA:I however took teh combat of DA2 and kept the good while removing the bad. I don't think it is perfect, for example the tactical camera doesn't zoom out far enough but all in all I enjoy the fights in the game. 

 

 

I find that when people make blanket statements about RPGs with regards to old is better or newer is better it is usually because they have an agenda and almost always the truth isn't part of that agenda.

 

[My old RPG list and my New rpg list is not by any means comprehensive I just listed examples of a few rpgs from each "era" that I enjoyed. It doesn't include all the rpgs from either 'era' that i liked either.]

This post should be posted with bold letters Before you enter the forum for all to read (although i dislike ALL bethesda games)

[ArcadiaGrey]

I had completely forgotten about these missions.  But while they do let you visit various locations, they were totally forgettable to me, as there is virtually no dialogue or choices being made (okay the javelin missiles has one choice, but it doesn't amount to anything), it's simply shooting gallery after shooting gallery.  Might as well be gathering ram meat while I'm at it.

 

That's a little harsh don't you think?  They are vastly superior to the fetch quests in DA:I.

Unlike ME1, the ME2 N7 missions are well crafted individual levels that clearly had a lot of time spent on them.  I for one appreciate the detail and care that was put into them.  

 

They develop organically, one leads into another then into another, so it feels like Shep is actually investigating and hunting them down.   At least you're not having to run into the same identical bases again and again on bland empty planets. 

[Mdizzletr0n]

That's a little harsh don't you think?  They are vastly superior to the fetch quests in DA:I.
Unlike ME1, the ME2 N7 missions are well crafted individual levels that clearly had a lot of time spent on them.  I for one appreciate the detail and care that was put into them.  
 
They develop organically, one leads into another then into another, so it feels like Shep is actually investigating and hunting them down.   At least you're not having to run into the same identical bases again and again on bland empty planets.

I agree with lakus. It was a lot of same-y shooting galleries with some dialogue thrown in.

[capn233]

I had completely forgotten about these missions.  But while they do let you visit various locations, they were totally forgettable to me, as there is virtually no dialogue or choices being made (okay the javelin missiles has one choice, but it doesn't amount to anything), it's simply shooting gallery after shooting gallery.  Might as well be gathering ram meat while I'm at it.

 

Perhaps.

 

ME1 had more choices in the UNC missions, although none of them amount to much of anything other than a cameo in ME2 really.  Of course it did a better job of using side missions to further characterize the ME universe and reinforce themes.

 

As far as ME2 is concerned, it is harder to characterize exactly what is a side mission.  Obviously assignments (starting with N7) are basically side quests, but since all loyalty missions and all post-horizon recruitment missions are technically optional, are they side missions?  These are the missions ME2 uses to explore themes.

 

ME3's recycled MP side missions were the low point for me.  N7: Mining the Canyon from ME2 is about as interesting as the plot of the recycled mp missions.  Of course the squadmate cameo side missions are more involved though, but these are probably akin to loyalty missions from ME2, although not quite as good most of the time.

[Iakus]

I'm not sure how ME2 gets there without either losing a couple of squadmates, a total redesign, or a fantasy budget. The RM/LM structure locks in a relatively large number of medium-sized missions that really can't be tied together much without straining credibility. ME3 has a somewhat different problem, but ended up burning through a lot more wordcount than the earlier games did while still failing to give you as many dialogue options as you would have liked.

ME2 had too many companions.  Even without DLCs

 

And I've made no secret that I'm not to happy about how ME2 was designed.

 

So....yes?

[Iakus]

That's a little harsh don't you think?  They are vastly superior to the fetch quests in DA:I.

Unlike ME1, the ME2 N7 missions are well crafted individual levels that clearly had a lot of time spent on them.  I for one appreciate the detail and care that was put into them.  

 

They develop organically, one leads into another then into another, so it feels like Shep is actually investigating and hunting them down.   At least you're not having to run into the same identical bases again and again on bland empty planets. 

Not really.  In DAI, at least I can knock out the fetch quests while on my way to do something more important.

 

THe ME2 N7 missions suffer a similar problem as many of DAI's large zones.  Beautiful, well-crafted, and largely devoid of life, or even anything interesting to do.  I never felt Shepard was "hunting"  anything.  Everything came to Shepard. Just to shoot stuff and hit switches.  Waves of enemies, conveniently placed chest-high cover, silent companions, We just traded bland environments for bland missions

[Iakus]

Perhaps.

 

ME1 had more choices in the UNC missions, although none of them amount to much of anything other than a cameo in ME2 really.  Of course it did a better job of using side missions to further characterize the ME universe and reinforce themes.

 

As far as ME2 is concerned, it is harder to characterize exactly what is a side mission.  Obviously assignments (starting with N7) are basically side quests, but since all loyalty missions and all post-horizon recruitment missions are technically optional, are they side missions?  These are the missions ME2 uses to explore themes.

 

ME3's recycled MP side missions were the low point for me.  N7: Mining the Canyon from ME2 is about as interesting as the plot of the recycled mp missions.  Of course the squadmate cameo side missions are more involved though, but these are probably akin to loyalty missions from ME2, although not quite as good most of the time.

I blame lack of planning on Bioware;s part.  SOme of those side missions absolutely should have had an impact on later games.

 

I think in ME2 they were trying to blur what was a main mission and what was a story mission.  I don' think they succeeded very well.

 

I'd rather have only one or two extra Grissom Academy-like missions than all the recycled MP-maps we got.

[RoboticWater]

I agree with lakus. It was a lot of same-y shooting galleries with some dialogue thrown in.

But they're not all the exact same shooting gallery. Most planets had some unique gameplay mechanic that differentiated themselves from each other i.e. a timer, mechs destroying assets you need, a wounded quarian in need of protection, and pure puzzles. The ones that didn't at least tried to have an interesting level layout.
 
There might not have been a whole lot of talking involved, but I'd take ME2's sidequests over many of ME1's and all of DA:I's fetch quests.

 

 

I blame lack of planning on Bioware;s part.  SOme of those side missions absolutely should have had an impact on later games.

 

I think in ME2 they were trying to blur what was a main mission and what was a story mission.  I don' think they succeeded very well.

 

I'd rather have only one or two extra Grissom Academy-like missions than all the recycled MP-maps we got.

I wasn't a fan of the map recycles either, but let's be honest, it would take more than 4 (or however many there were) of those missions to equal anything close to Grissom Academy resource-wise. In the case of ME3, I don't think BioWare really had the choice between 1 more big mission or 4 more lame missions; they probably had a choice betweer 4 more lame missions or nothing at all.

[tesla21]

Speaking fro myself, I'd give up a lot.  I have played every single game of Medhia_Nox's list (including Torment's Early Access) and find they contain so much that AAA games simply ignore nowadays.

 

But my point was that this old school, isometric, silent protagonist game saved a company that was floundering after making more "modern" rpgs.

 

There is basically no way Bioware can return to that point anymore after DAI, ME3-2 in my opinion. They have grown a fan base who would be absolutely dissapointed if they went back to top down voiceless crpgs... maybe as a side development game without interfering ME/DA games, if that's even possible.

 

Personally I am pleased enough with PoE and Divinity as of late, the market for these games is really not that big though definetly still there, just the fact that there are still some being developed is good news.

[MrFob]

But they're not all the exact same shooting gallery. Most planets had some unique gameplay mechanic that differentiated themselves from each other i.e. a timer, mechs destroying assets you need, a wounded quarian in need of protection, and pure puzzles. The ones that didn't at least tried to have an interesting level layout.
 
There might not have been a whole lot of talking involved, but I'd take ME2's sidequests over many of ME1's and all of DA:I's fetch quests.

 

In fact, I remember a dev comment on the old forums after the release of ME2 (when devs still could be found on the BW forums ), that had some interesting info on the N7 missions. According to that comment, N7 missions often originated from dev's ideas to try new stuff that was too experimental for the main game. Rather than just scrapping that stuff all together, they decided to use it for N7 missions.

IIRC, he said that some missions (and I think he called out the one where you re-activate the solar shield) were made by single devs on weekends as personal side projects. Now granted, that solar shield mission was not exactly the epitome of ingenious gameplay but if this stuff is lying around anyway, I think it's great if it is put into the game as long as you don't have to sacrifice the important stuff for it.

At least, given all thsi info, I doubt the main story of ME2 would have significant;y improved if the N7 missions had been scrapped.

 

For example (as I said in another thread) I think it was great that we could have small missions for the MP maps in ME3. We still get real (and very well made) side missions anyway (like Gellix or the asari monastery) but those N7 missions were very cost effective to put into the campaign and I think it was a great idea to give us non-MP players that extra content. I really don't see the downside.