847 réponses à ce sujet

[Natureguy85]

I think people should really drop that ill informed assumption that no matter what exploration takes away from the overall quality of the story.

 

After this well needed introduction let's focus on ME shall we? It seems clear for what we can assume so far that BW wants this new game to be a spiritual successor to ME1 with its focus on exploration of uncharted planets and a sense of discovery of large and exotic galaxy. Would the people criticizing this new exploration focus in ME:A define ME1 an MMO too? Would you call the overall plot of ME1 bad or poorly written? I don't think that would be honest especially if you put said plot in comparison with the other two ME games that lacked exploration. Is ME2 plot any better? Is there a plot in ME2? Is that story relevant? How the lack of exploration makes that plot any better? I don't think anyone can in all honesty call ME2 non-plot good at all. 

 

Moving to ME3: Is ME3 plot good too? Would you pick ME1 endings or ME3 endings? How can a plot be good if its ending is flawed and nonsensical. How the lack of exploration made ME3 plot any better? ME3 sidequests were any better than ME1 sidequest? Let's all be honest with each other....I hope we all remember the eavesdropping "sidequests" of ME3....was that lack of quality the fault of exploration too?

 

In conclusion my point is: A plot is good or bad regardless of the exploration mechanics. ME2 didn't have any exploration and yet it had no meaningful plot whatsoever. ME3 had no exploration too and that didn't help in making ME3 story any better. IMO ME1 with all its flaws still has the most coherent and satisfying plot of all three games or at least the least controversial. ME1 exploration albeit rudimentary in its form greatly enhanced the immersion feeling and provided to the player the illusion of huge galaxy to explore. Also empty spaces is what most of space is made of..it is realistic to have empty spaces in space and there is beauty also in that.

 

Exploration can't be looked at in a vacuum. Like many things, there are both right and wrong way and times to use it. The first question for exploration is if there is anything to find or experience. I haven't played DAI, but for those that complain about the exploration, the answer has been a resounding "no."

 

Especially for those of us who like story, setting and tone are also very important. While some may not have liked it, the exploration at least fit perfectly in Mass Effect. First, as the first game in the series, it helped to build the universe and how it works. It showed that this big galaxy is full of planets and people doing things. Many of the things to find weren't ground breaking, but I loved that you find few mining operations or find a bullet riddled skull on a planet whose description notes it as a hunting ground. You even find a few research bases full of husks, connecting those locations to the main plot.

 

Second, unlike the later games and the war of Inquisition, while you had a goal and an adversary, things were not all that dire. You had time to fly around the galaxy and license to do whatever you wanted. Saren might get closer to the Conduit while you went and got Wrex's armor, but Reapers weren't killing millions of people.

 

Third, it gave us a cool space ship that could go places others couldn't and instantaneous travel between Mass Relays. You'd be a fool to not let players utilize that. While it's not a reason to not have it, a setting like Dragon Age where you have to get around on foot or by horse does not demand it as much as sci-fi does.

 

 

I didn't think the exploration part of ME1 worked that well at all. They got away with it because the central story was so compelling.

ME2 did a very good job in terms of its wider story content, though it very much completely threw the exploration element out the window as part of the process.

I really hope they aren't pinning this game as a spiritual successor to ME1 but as a gestalt entity of all 3.

 

I disagree on ME1 for reasons I explain above. ME2 did a terrible job in terms of wider story content. The main plot was crap, though the character stories were mostly good.

 

 

Personally it wasn't that ME2 lacked open world content - it's that the story went so randomly off track from how it was setup at the end of ME1, for the sake of making it accessible to new players - instead of being a planned coherent narrative spanning the trilogy.

 

There's so many different ways it could have gone, merging/condensing some of the characters and hooking them into the core reaper plot (rather than a bunch of unrelated loyalty quests), ultimately taking the pressure off ME3 to have to tie up so many loose ends in one game.

 

Sure BW may have wanted to explore characters in the universe - however the scope of the reaper plot was already too vast to fill 3 games and then they go and waste one of them on nothing - so in essence they had to do it in two games (ME1 and ME3).

 

 

That's why I hope MEA is a standalone, self contained game with no direct sequel.

 

The problem with ME2 wasn't that the character stories were disconnected from the main plot. It was a shift to a character focus from a plot or event focus, much like Star Wars is. The war with the Empire is merely the backdrop for the stories of Luke, Han, and Leia. Now I'm not sure if that was intentional or from how bad the ME2 plot was. The scope of the Reaper plot wasn't to big to have smaller character stories, it was too big to not advance in the least bit through an entire chapter of the trilogy.

 

 

 

 

Well, you see, it's hard to see the legitimate complaints through the forest of people who will continue to complain purely because of the fact that Bioware is published by EA. 

 

 

It's especially hard when you just lump them together. There were plenty of complaints dealing directly with the content of the game.

[Giantdeathrobot]

ME2's plot is responsible for a lot of ME3's problems, I think. By bringing the Reaper storyline to a screeching halt and focusing instead on a cast of characters that would by necessity be rendered anecdotical in the third game (by virtue of everyone being able to die in the Suicide Mission), it ensured ME3 needed to focus on all the Big Issues: the Reaper wars and how to beat them, the Genophage, the Geth-Quarian conflict, the end of Cerberus, which is a lot for one game. By comparison, ME2 only dealt with one big issue decisively, the Collectors, and it wasn't even an issue until the game made them one. So ME3 was crammed with major storylines to resolve, to its detriment.

 

I mean, ME3's ending is crap all by itself. But I'm sure some of the above plotlines would have been well served by being resolved in ME2. I think they should have introduced the Crucible in ME2 (with data from the Collector Base forming the basis of the project instead of ass-pulling it from the Mars Archives) and maybe manage to resolve the Geth-Quarian conflict then and there. 

[Sailears]

Don't bash ME2 - it might not have been as great as ME1 was (in the sense that the story of the first was better!), but it had introduced a lot of interesting story lines and it had personal quests (I'd have loved it if those were way way longer with branching paths etc.) for the companions etc. I loved ME2

 

I agree on ME3 however (that game was unsatisfying to say the least - the gameplay was fluid (best in the series), I give them that, but the story was atrocious, the linearity was ****** stupid (I'd for example would have gone to Thessia first, as the Asari are the glue/the leaders of the council and the most important people to get aboard when fighting an enemy like the reapers, but that was not permitted, no I had to go for the damned (note: I don't hate them, but they aren't my favorites either!) Turians first...damned!) and the ending was so ****** bad (I heard that's partially because they fired one (if not the lead!) writers during the making of the game!) it's almost funny (not really though, it still pisses me off to this day!))

 

I also agree with the OP, I think that Bioware has lost its way their games have been getting worse and worse after Mass Effect 2 (Dragon Age 2 was frankly not that great, Mass Effect 3 was really really bad and Dragon Age: Inquisition really plays like an MMO that was re-tooled as a single player game (like they tried to make a single player SW:TOR with a lot more filler content!))!

 

I hope they do it right - again (I mean we know that they can do it - KOTOR, Dragon Age 1, Mass Effect 1 etc. enough said!)...but then again:

 

There's EA and they have to please their shareholders (most of which aren't gamers sadly, because then they'd accept late releases (most rather have a finished and polished game then a game that's releases half-done and full of bugs!))....still, I will keep my fingers crossed!

 

greetings LAX

 

Personally, ME2 was a very good standalone game but a very poor sequel to ME1.
 

[AlanC9]

Especially for those of us who like story, setting and tone are also very important. While some may not have liked it, the exploration at least fit perfectly in Mass Effect. First, as the first game in the series, it helped to build the universe and how it works. It showed that this big galaxy is full of planets and people doing things. Many of the things to find weren't ground breaking, but I loved that you find few mining operations or find a bullet riddled skull on a planet whose description notes it as a hunting ground. You even find a few research bases full of husks, connecting those locations to the main plot.

The question is whether that tone actually fits the story, though. Shepard isn't an explorer by profession, and space travel is a routine part of his life rather than an adventure in itself. I thought the ME1 exploration badly undermined the RP. It woukd have been a better fit for ME2.
 

Second, unlike the later games and the war of Inquisition, while you had a goal and an adversary, things were not all that dire. You had time to fly around the galaxy and license to do whatever you wanted. Saren might get closer to the Conduit while you went and got Wrex's armor, but Reapers weren't killing millions of people.

Huh? Unless Shepard knows that he's a character in an RPG without time limits, this makes no sense at all. ME1's main plot isn't less time critical than ME3's, it's far worse. If Saren gets to the Conduit far enough ahead of Shepard the Reapers will kill everybody.

[Sailears]

 

The problem with ME2 wasn't that the character stories were disconnected from the main plot. It was a shift to a character focus from a plot or event focus, much like Star Wars is. The war with the Empire is merely the backdrop for the stories of Luke, Han, and Leia. Now I'm not sure if that was intentional or from how bad the ME2 plot was. The scope of the Reaper plot wasn't to big to have smaller character stories, it was too big to not advance in the least bit through an entire chapter of the trilogy.

I wouldn't mind expanding on the core character and species backgrounds in ME2 providing they had at least tried to progress the reaper/prothean plot sufficiently. Unfortunately they didn't.

 

 

ME2's plot is responsible for a lot of ME3's problems, I think. By bringing the Reaper storyline to a screeching halt and focusing instead on a cast of characters that would by necessity be rendered anecdotical in the third game (by virtue of everyone being able to die in the Suicide Mission), it ensured ME3 needed to focus on all the Big Issues: the Reaper wars and how to beat them, the Genophage, the Geth-Quarian conflict, the end of Cerberus, which is a lot for one game. By comparison, ME2 only dealt with one big issue decisively, the Collectors, and it wasn't even an issue until the game made them one. So ME3 was crammed with major storylines to resolve, to its detriment.

 

I mean, ME3's ending is crap all by itself. But I'm sure some of the above plotlines would have been well served by being resolved in ME2. I think they should have introduced the Crucible in ME2 (with data from the Collector Base forming the basis of the project instead of ass-pulling it from the Mars Archives) and maybe manage to resolve the Geth-Quarian conflict then and there. 

I totally agree - among other things, in hindsight the Crucible should have certainly been introduced in ME2. It would have felt less contrived.

[JoltDealer]

Armor tinting and Black Emporium did make to PS3, but casual outfits and some other things didn't. They released them after announcing to that they stopped supporting PS3 and XBOX360.

 

It's not horrible game, but if Bioware games in general are best games you have ever played- DAI might not live up to them. ME:A this far sounds like they are just focusing making same changes on Mass Effect than what they did to Dragon Age with DAI without caring about criticism that DAI got. I'd much rather see ME:A to follow trilogy's instead of DAI.

 

Ah.  That's right.  Like I said before, Bioware shouldn't have ported a next gen game to last gen consoles.  The results, in short, were watered down.

 

I understand what you're saying, but is that not an odd complaint to make.  Bioware games are still better than most, but we criticize them for not being as good as the games that made the studio famous?  Had Inquisition been of the same quality as Dragon Age II, then I would be very worried indeed, but it wasn't.  The story took its time and only felt rushed in maybe its resolution, but Origins had the same issue.

 

I digress.  Your worries are warranted, but there's no reason to assume that Mass Effect feedback and Dragon Age feedback are mutually exclusive.  I'm not aware of any official statistics, but I'd be willing to bet that at least half of the people that played the Mass Effect series also play Dragon Age.  Even if that weren't the case, Mass Effect Andromeda and Dragon Age Inquisition both share the same engine, as well as some core systems and tools.  Also, the two series share the dialogue wheel, cinematic conversations, party mechanics, and some customization options (I say some because they're more similar than identical).  So while they're more than likely making similar changes to Mass Effect, I'm sure they are going to account for fan feedback.  They incorporated it very well with Inquisition, so I have hope for Andromeda.

[Natureguy85]

ME2's plot is responsible for a lot of ME3's problems, I think. By bringing the Reaper storyline to a screeching halt and focusing instead on a cast of characters that would by necessity be rendered anecdotical in the third game (by virtue of everyone being able to die in the Suicide Mission), it ensured ME3 needed to focus on all the Big Issues: the Reaper wars and how to beat them, the Genophage, the Geth-Quarian conflict, the end of Cerberus, which is a lot for one game. By comparison, ME2 only dealt with one big issue decisively, the Collectors, and it wasn't even an issue until the game made them one. So ME3 was crammed with major storylines to resolve, to its detriment.

 

I mean, ME3's ending is crap all by itself. But I'm sure some of the above plotlines would have been well served by being resolved in ME2. I think they should have introduced the Crucible in ME2 (with data from the Collector Base forming the basis of the project instead of ass-pulling it from the Mars Archives) and maybe manage to resolve the Geth-Quarian conflict then and there. 

 

I wouldn't mind expanding on the core character and species backgrounds in ME2 providing they had at least tried to progress the reaper/prothean plot sufficiently. Unfortunately they didn't.

 

You're both right but the lack of progress in the Reaper plot is the fault of the pointless Collector plot, not the character stories. However, there were too many characters. Thane and Kasumi had the least reason to be there.

 

 

 

The question is whether that tone actually fits the story, though. Shepard isn't an explorer by profession, and space travel is a routine part of his life rather than an adventure in itself. I thought the ME1 exploration badly undermined the RP. It woukd have been a better fit for ME2.
 

Huh? Unless Shepard knows that he's a character in an RPG without time limits, this makes no sense at all. ME1's main plot isn't less time critical than ME3's, it's far worse. If Saren gets to the Conduit far enough ahead of Shepard the Reapers will kill everybody.

 

The first part is a fair way to look at it and is more character than player focused. You're way off on the second part. First, in ME1, the Reaper threat is poorly defined and unknown until the end. I actually forgot to put something about my explanation working less after Virmire, though the game lets you do it all then. In ME3 however, the Reapers are actually there and actually are killing everyone. In no way is "here" less of a problem than "coming."

[Sylvius the Mad]

Exploration can't be looked at in a vacuum. Like many things, there are both right and wrong way and times to use it. The first question for exploration is if there is anything to find or experience. I haven't played DAI, but for those that complain about the exploration, the answer has been a resounding "no."

Those of us who liked it, though, would say yes.

Just the sense of size and scale is valuable, I think.

[JoltDealer]

It's especially hard when you just lump them together. There were plenty of complaints dealing directly with the content of the game.

 

And I am aware of said complaints.  Hell, I even addressed some of them in my other posts in this thread.  Now I apologize for lumping those sorts of posts together, but you're a member of this forum.  Are you honestly going to tell me that every last complaint is well-articulated or even explained?  If it's whining for the sake of whining, I'll scroll right on past it, but, if it's elaborated on and open to discussion, I'm more than willing to talk about it.  No matter the number of complaints, if you express your opinions poorly, then they shall always be received poorly.

[JoltDealer]

Those of us who liked it, though, would say yes.

Just the sense of size and scale is valuable, I think.

 

Ah, Sylvius, glad to see you're still around.  I think there was plenty to discover in Inquisition, but I think not everyone was a fan of the subtlety of 90% of it.  You had to read the entries and pay attention to what was going on in the game.  One of my personal favorites was discovering the tale surrounding the thaig above ground.  Another good one was when you came across what seemed to be one of Solas' former resting places.  

 

The problem with exploration is that a good balance is needed.  Have too little to find and the level feels too big or empty.  Have too much to find and it cheapens the moments when you discover something new.  

[Giantdeathrobot]

Those of us who liked it, though, would say yes.

Just the sense of size and scale is valuable, I think.

 

Yeah, I really don't think Inquisition somehow proved that open world = bad, at all. They need to improve upon their formula, sure, and deliver better quests as well as faster traversal means. But the idea of big, open levels isn't a bad one at all, especially since Bioware games have often been glorified corridors since KOTOR.

[frylock23]

Those of us who liked it, though, would say yes.

Just the sense of size and scale is valuable, I think.

 

While I enjoyed the exploration and lore of DA:I, I wished they had added more story elements to the regions. Each one should have had something plot critical to it. While they all had stories, the over-arching plot itself was only connected to a few regions and those were disconnected set pieces not tied to the regions except in a few cases.

 

I think Red Cliff was fairly well done, but the Hinterlands was enormous.

 

But we needed similar plot relevant pieces to go in every region with similar build up inside the areas we were exploring.

[Natureguy85]

Those of us who liked it, though, would say yes.

Just the sense of size and scale is valuable, I think.

 

We were discussing the value of exploration generally. What is the value of size and scale if it's empty? And I mean truly empty. I won't say there isn't value in finding a cool hidden place that looks really nice if it's presented well, even if there isn't some treasure or hidden truth there. But if it's a big mass of sameness, I don't see what that's worth. This is why, while I liked going to different planets in the Normandy, I did not like driving around in the mako. It had nothing to do with the controls, but that I had a huge mass of terrain generator to search for a few points of interest.

 

I like discovery and therefore prefer exploration when it is done in the service of discovery. I actually just played an old adventure game made by Lucas Arts called The Dig. It was really good and scratched that itch for me. There are the usual annoying "adventure game" moments but only one puzzle I really call BS on.

 

 

 

And I am aware of said complaints.  Hell, I even addressed some of them in my other posts in this thread.  Now I apologize for lumping those sorts of posts together, but you're a member of this forum.  Are you honestly going to tell me that every last complaint is well-articulated or even explained?  If it's whining for the sake of whining, I'll scroll right on past it, but, if it's elaborated on and open to discussion, I'm more than willing to talk about it.  No matter the number of complaints, if you express your opinions poorly, then they shall always be received poorly.

 

Oh sure there were probably plenty of dumb posts, but the "Oh they just don't like X" is a common attempt to dismiss criticism even if it's on substantive things.

 

 

Ah, Sylvius, glad to see you're still around.  I think there was plenty to discover in Inquisition, but I think not everyone was a fan of the subtlety of 90% of it.  You had to read the entries and pay attention to what was going on in the game.  One of my personal favorites was discovering the tale surrounding the thaig above ground.  Another good one was when you came across what seemed to be one of Solas' former resting places. 

 

Time and experience can also factor in. When I first played ME, I didn't appreciate some of the things I mentioned, though I do now that I have a larger appreciation for world building.

[Drone223]

Personally, ME2 was a very good standalone game but a very poor sequel to ME1.
 

Indeed while ME2 is a great game on its own you can jump into ME3 without playing ME2 and there wouldn't be much of a difference.

[Sailears]

You're both right but the lack of progress in the Reaper plot is the fault of the pointless Collector plot, not the character stories. However, there were too many characters. Thane and Kasumi had the least reason to be there.

I do think they could have merged (Jack and Miranda) and axed (as you say Thane, Kasumi and perhaps one or two others) certain characters, but yeah I agree anyway.

[Natureguy85]

I do think they could have merged (Jack and Miranda) and axed (as you say Thane, Kasumi and perhaps one or two others) certain characters, but yeah I agree anyway.

 

Smudboy suggested combing Jack with Miranda as well as Zaeed with Jacob.

[vbibbi]

Smudboy suggested combing Jack with Miranda as well as Zaeed with Jacob.

What would a combination of Jack and Miranda look like? They are practically oil and water; Jack hates Cerberus and wants to take them down while Miranda is their cheerleader.

[Natureguy85]

What would a combination of Jack and Miranda look like? They are practically oil and water; Jack hates Cerberus and wants to take them down while Miranda is their cheerleader.

 

They don't get along because they are on opposite sides of viewing Cerberus, but they have a lot of similarities if you think about it. I'll let Smudboy explain.

[General TSAR]

Honestly, the only good things about inquisition are the DLCs.

[fizzypop]

God I seriously hope they don't. It would kill my love for this franchise. I like the cheesy storytelling about heroes. Let's get back to that and less about filler content.

[Arcian]

Still a better game than ME3

ME3 as a game is considerably better than DA:I because the gameplay is actually fun, but ME3 as a story is considerably worse than DA:I, if only because of the garbage ending.

 

Smudboy suggested combing Jack with Miranda as well as Zaeed with Jacob.

Smugboy's opinions shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.

[Sarayne]

They don't get along because they are on opposite sides of viewing Cerberus, but they have a lot of similarities if you think about it. I'll let Smudboy explain.

Oh wow this is pretty interesting! I'll have to watch this whole playlist now... 

[AlanC9]

The first part is a fair way to look at it and is more character than player focused. You're way off on the second part. First, in ME1, the Reaper threat is poorly defined and unknown until the end. I actually forgot to put something about my explanation working less after Virmire, though the game lets you do it all then. In ME3 however, the Reapers are actually there and actually are killing everyone. In no way is "here" less of a problem than "coming."

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Saren's entire plan is about finding a way for the Reapers to return. It's in Tali's audio recording. Since Shepard knows what the Reapers are and what they're going to do, how can Shepard figure that giving Saren more time to make that happen is a sane risk to run?

[Natureguy85]

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Saren's entire plan is about finding a way for the Reapers to return. It's in Tali's audio recording. Since Shepard knows what the Reapers are and what they're going to do, how can Shepard figure that giving Saren more time to make that happen is a sane risk to run?

 

All Tali's audio says is that Saren is trying to bring back the Reapers. The rest is Shepard guessing at unclear images in his head. You're told you can't find Saren and to follow up on a few leads. However you're also told you can do what you want and don't answer to the people who give you the leads. Not all, but many side missions have to do with Geth or even husks. Now some of this is meta-gaming as it would make sense to just do the main quests and perhaps a few of the side quests like the geth bases where you get the data Tali wants. But Saren is still nothing compared to the Reapers actually being around killing people.

[Sylvius the Mad]

While I enjoyed the exploration and lore of DA:I, I wished they had added more story elements to the regions. Each one should have had something plot critical to it. While they all had stories, the over-arching plot itself was only connected to a few regions and those were disconnected set pieces not tied to the regions except in a few cases.

I would disagree with this. I would find it implausible that everywhere we could go just hapoened to be plot-relevant.

Having places we can go that have nothing at all to so with the story makes the setting more belivable, because it makes the setting something more than just a storytelling tool.