58 réponses à ce sujet

[Ascari]

In ME1, You can go to Feros,Therum,Noveria,and Virmire in any order. In ME2, you can recruit the first 4 squadmates in any order and the next 3 squadmates that same way. Then in ME3, you beat a mission, then go to the next one. I think Bioware did this for better pacing. Would you want to play missions in any order you want again? To me, I think it adds a little replayability.

[RoboticWater]

I don't think it's necessary. It's somewhat nice to play through different bits when restarting, but I like Mass Effect's combat enough from a moment to moment perspective that even playing through the same parts over and over isn't a chore at all for me.

 

While pacing is certainly a large benefit of strict linear mission structure, the freedom that it allows the writers is probably more important to BioWare. Knowing precisely which companions we have and what story we've already seen would give the writers much more confidence to interconnect plots, give characters more agency outside of their own specific arcs, and potentially allow actions to have more visible results. Giving control over mission order to the player is just one more set of variables to account for, and I suspect that it may lead to a set of completely sequestered story arcs like the missions in ME1 rather than a set of separate arcs that communicate and build onto each other.

[ArcadiaGrey]

No, it doesn't work well in ME1.  Sure it gives you freedom but recently I did Noveria before Feros.  Shepard's dialogue doesn't change on Feros even though he had already met Benezia and learnt all about indoctrination.

So having missions in any order may seem more liberating, but in fact it just stifles any story progression.  It's far easier to give a sense of time going by and achieving things, changing the world etc, in a linear mission order.

 

It bugs the heck outta me how the order in which you approach the main quests in DA:O has no impact anywhere.  No one mentions what you just did, the situation never gets worse...they're just in stasis.

Contrast that with DAI and you have a sense of an Inquisition starting out as a bunch of plebs no one wants to work with, to gradually becoming powerful and renowned across Thedas.  Or ME3 gradually convincing the other races to work with you, or seeing their own situation get more desperate so that their hands are tied and they have to join forces with the Alliance.

 

However I'd like a few more side missions that are more fluid, that can be done for a long period of time, and perhaps one or two that even get worse the longer you leave them.  That way you can switch them up next playthrough and not just go through a list of missions in the exact same order you did them last time.

 

As for ME2, I love that game but damn, the mission order is messed up.  It's so contrived and it doesn't matter one bit which order you get the guys in.  It'll always be 'get the big 4 then Horizon no matter what.'  Then '5 missions after Horizon, the collector ship', followed by 'the whole of the rest of the bloody game, then the IFF so you don't kill the crew'.  

It feels more formulaic than ME1 or ME3 for me.

[Draining Dragon]

If they let us choose the order, it should have an actual impact on the story. For instance, if we go to one planet first, that should open up new dialogue on the second.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

For many years, BioWare seemed to stick mostly to a "Starting Area," which ends with an Act one climax that launches the player into a choice of four hubs. When all four hubs' main story arcs have been completed, a final climactic area unlocks.

 

I can remember KotOR, DA:O, and Mass Effect sticking the closest to that formula, with their respective sequels deviating from the pattern in different ways (but still largely reflecting a similar structure.)

 

It works better in some cases than others, with KoTOR probably being the one in which it worked the best.

 

I like it, personally. Especially if the various story arcs of an area are really well done. I think some of my favourite hubs were from Mass Effect, even if the structure was feeling a little forced by that time.

 

I suspect that they are moving away from it, either intentionally or unintentionally. I certainly missed it in DA:I, where hubs weren't used at all. It might sound strange, but that lack of structure made the missions feel even more like they were just point-to-point relays to get an experience reward. Having hubs allows the missions to take on a flavour, and feel organic to the area that they're in. A mission's flaws are a lot more easily forgiven if it feels like a natural part of the story and setting.

 

I like my areas to be more like a giant mos-eisely-style asteroid bar where different areas have different groups of people that I interact with, rather than an open area with a bunch of dots for me to run back and forth between.

 

Not to pick on DAI, which had plenty of things that I liked, it's just that its area and side mission design weren't really among them.

[NKnight7]

I wouldn't mind at least having the option, that way you can play each playthrough a little different if you want to. Although, even with the ability to play in any order I almost always did the same order of planets/areas for all of my playthroughs in ME1. Liara>Noveria>Feros>Vermire>Ilos.

[Sanunes]

Except for locking potential party members deep into the game, I haven't had any issues with the more structured plot line for as mentioned above the worlds don't really react differently to your choices and that bugs me more then having the primary missions in a set order.

[ZipZap2000]

One of the things I will say the witcher did well was this. It can be done its a matter of if Bioware can pull it off.

[sjsharp2011]

I wouldn't mind at least having the option, that way you can play each playthrough a little different if you want to. Although, even with the ability to play in any order I almost always did the same order of planets/areas for all of my playthroughs in ME1. Liara>Noveria>Feros>Vermire>Ilos.

yeah I tend to stick more or less the same order too. I usually go Feros first then Liara then Noveria then Virmire then Ilos. I do sometimes switch Feros and Liara around though so I can sometimes use Liara on the Feros mission but generally though I stick to that order as I generally bring Liara along when dealing with her mother. Not always but most of the time I do.

[SerriceIceDandy]

The only things that bother me are missions that when taking them force your hand to go through the next few parts of the game. It really bugged me that in Mass Effect 2, I only had Legion for 1 mission after getting the IFF before being forced to do the endgame if I didn't want half my crew to made into stew. 

[Linkenski]

Even before ME3 arrived I had this idea that "what if we don't even get the Normandy?". I thought it would be cool if a Mass Effect game had a completely linear level-to-level structure but instead the interactivity of the story and "exploration" was in how those seires of levels would branch out depending on your choices.

 

If you ask me which Mass Effect game I thought had the best story-structure I can't honestly say. They're all really good and bad in their own ways. I didn't think the structure of ME1 really paid off, except it made side-questing much more attractive. Mass Effect 2 had that main mission timer on which was great because it actually made you feel like the story was happening as you were playing and the world didn't just stand still for the player's leisure but it was bad because it became unpredictable and the triggers felt arbitrary. Mass Effect 3 was great because it keeps it focused but bad because it made everything feel too narrow by only having 2-3 side-missions (that all play like main missions anyway) and 1 main mission at a time while still letting you pick locations on the map to make it feel non-linear, but in contrast to the other two it felt too small and like a step back. This would not have happened if ME3 had kept the structure it was going for with Earth, Mars and then Palaven just going forward and, like I said, made it a linear series of missions that change depending on choice.

 

But all this aside, it's pointless anyway. They've said Andromeda is about exploration and all previews and leaks talk about guns and the devs keep tweeting how cool it is that you get to shoot people in the face, so really, I'm getting the sense that, whatever the story will be, Andromeda does not concern itself with achieving the movie-like feel of ME3's linear structure.

[SwobyJ]

My ideal would be a mix of ME2 and ME3. Or rather, like ME3 but a little more overall choice.

 

I like arc sections. I'm good with that. I just don't want a straight line, or on the other end, feeling lost and that the narrative lacks fluidity. I don't need a 'movie', but I don't just want a 'world sim' (Bioware games are never that outright, but they can lean more that end than otherwise; I surely didn't love that I had SO much choice of missions post Horizon as it felt that I was spending dozens of hours derping while Collectors take people).

[Il Divo]

I was never particularly attracted to this aspect of Bioware games; the variable order never really contributed much (imo). In some cases, I would argue that the end result was a more filler-focused narrative. 

 

In that sense, I think the linear narrative of ME3 and DA:I is better. On the other hand, you can have a more linear narrative while still having some type of open world structure. 

[slimgrin]

To me this improves the sense of agency and freedom in the game immensely. It makes for a better RPG. So yes, let us do most anything in any order, and then they can have certain critical points in the plot where a mission is required. 

[Atomkick]

In ME2, they forced us to do main quests which is what I didn't like. Other than that I'm fine with following an order for missions.

[General TSAR]

If they let us choose the order, it should have an actual impact on the story. For instance, if we go to one planet first, that should open up new dialogue on the second.

Mass Effect had that I believe.

 

For example, you could skip rescuing Liara and complete Noveria, Feros, and even Virmire before recruiting her. When you recruit her, you basically tell her the entire plot up until Ilos and she becomes royally pissed off because you spoiled the big galaxy shattering mystery. 

 

It was great, but then again so was BioWare back then.

[AlanC9]

The Liara thing was kind of cute, but it highlighted how crappy the motivation for going there in the first place was. Then again, ME1 wasn't big on explaining why something was a main quest in the first place. And after all these years, I still have no idea who sent the report of geth on Noveria.

As for the topic... depends on the story. If I don't have any clue where to go, things might as well happen in random order. But I don't see any real value in it RP-wise. In games that aren't organized around the universe magically presenting my PC with several options that will turn out to all be critical to his main mission, I've typically had just as good RP reasons to do the quests that were coming up next.

[Hadeedak]

I quite like the way ME3 did it --having what you can and can't do segmented by the big story missions was a nice way to maintain urgency while still letting you faff about a bit at your own pace.

 

The turian platoon set is actually one of my favorite side missions as far as the pacing goes -- and it's entirely optional to the story! There's also a lot of ways you can do it, including a special treat if you hold off and bring your VS.

[Midnight Bliss]

I want a linear mission progression with more focus on story cohesion, quality and progression.

 

This "choose what to do next" System comes at the expense of too much of the story and ultimately adds nothing and doesn't make sense in most situations. So off with it's head, I say.

[fraggle]

I like how ME3 did it. Except some side missions like Grissom or Cerberus Abductions, the missions can be done even at a later point in any sequence, or completed before Priority: Tuchanka if desired. Delaying some missions resulted in different dialogue from your squad mates, for example if you do Ex-Cerberus Scientists after wrapping up Rannoch, Garrus will refer to its outcome when having the little pissing contest with James instead of mentioning curing the genophage.

Loved the Turian Platoon/Cerberus Bomb missions. If you wait too long in-between a nice thing happens Didn't do it myself yet, but it's nice to see a consequence if you ignore the bomb for too long. I also liked you can delay either the 2 Tuchanka side missions or the Krogan Scouts mission so you can bring even Tali to these missions, and next time swap them around and do the other early on.

[wright1978]

I do think you need some sort of structure, though hopefully there will be some freedom within that structure.

I think if you are allowed to go anywhere in any order what usually ends up is that referencing is sacrificed.

[Atomkick]

Loved the Turian Platoon/Cerberus Bomb missions. If you wait too long in-between a nice thing happens

 

If you do any 3 missions before Tuchanka:Bomb then

Spoiler

the mission will fail costing you some krogan war assets(300 points) and other consequences regarding Eve.

[Valdez_ua]

Of course. If MEN is about exploration than making it linear is just stupid.

[Guanxii]

Absolutely. To be honest I think the concept of having a 'main quest' distinct from secondary quests is becoming old hat. You also don't have to always converge disconnected plots together at the end either.

Either go old school have a giant main quest with linear pacing/progression or give the player a me2-style episodic buffet of 12+ different planet/story quests to do in any order but don't mix the two other wise you get whiplash pacing.

Alternatively you could have 3 or more lengthier self contained episodic stories in no particular order expanding on the foundations of the Rannoch and Tuchanka arcs - the two bright spots of ME3 which found a happy middle ground between structure and agency.

Given we're hopefully going out adventuring/exploring in more of an open-world direction and not tethered to a lengthy centralized plot battling some great evil again (hopefully) I'm hoping for some quality episodic storytelling of the buffet or three course set meal variety as described above.

[9TailsFox]