Looking for (or talking to) someone or attacking an enemy base(which is what most of Andromeda quests are) does not make it a fetch quest. Otherwise, you might as well call every quests or every games fetch quests.
But it does if all you do to look for or talk to someone is pressing the same button as collecting something. It's the exact same gameplay.
And no, it doesn't make every game into a fetch quest game because in other games you actually have to do different stuff to complete different quests. Even when a quest is basically a fetch quest but has a big amount of story - it's not a fetch quest anymore. Fetch quest is only this - fetching something to complete a quest without doing anything else.
I'm not saying Andromeda was really original with its quests. I mean, most are just that... talking to someone or attacking an enemy base with maybe some scanning necessary, but I would not call most of its quests as fetch quests.
Fetch quests literally involve you going to a place to get an item from an NPC, and then come back to advance the story. Optional collectible quests aren't "fetch quests".
Like I said, getting hung up on whether they are fetch quests or not is sort of missing the point. What they definitely are is busy work quests that add nothing, full of pointless filler content that doesn't need to be there. Endless repeated battles just aren't fun.
There's a reason ME2 was so successful and the most critically acclaimed of the series - because it removed all that crap from ME1. I really don't understand why they thought it a good idea to go back to it.
Like I said, getting hung up on whether they are fetch quests or not is sort of missing the point. What they definitely are is busy work quests that add nothing, full of pointless filler content that doesn't need to be there. Endless repeated battles just aren't fun.
There's a reason ME2 was so successful and the most critically acclaimed of the series - because it removed all that crap from ME1. I really don't understand why they thought it a good idea to go back to it.
They don't add "nothing". There are people who genuinely like doing that type of shit. The same people who like collecting map icons in Assassin's Creed. Maybe that's not something a more discerning player would be interested in, but if you're not, all you have to do is ignore those quests. And you'll still be left with a 60 hour long game instead of a 100 hour long game.
But it does if all you do to look for or talk to someone is pressing the same button as collecting something. It's the exact same gameplay.
And no, it doesn't make every game into a fetch quest game because in other games you actually have to do different stuff to complete different quests. Even when a quest is basically a fetch quest but has a big amount of story - it's not a fetch quest anymore. Fetch quest is only this - fetching something to complete a quest without doing anything else.
I don't know... just quests? I don't give a name to every type of quests there is out there. There is the mindless MMO quests where you have to gather dozens of items out in the open, then there is the typical quests where you either kill a bunch of bad guys to reach your objective, or where you have to talk to someone in some hub or base. Which is basically what Mass Effect always has been, the only difference being that there's a lot more travel to do in Andromeda rather than a single quest being all done in the same level like in ME2 or ME3.
Anyway, it's not nearly as bad as the ME3 quests where you overhear some NPC on the Citadel, go scan some random planet without ever landing on it, go back to the Citadel and get your reward.
Despite all the arguing going on, the game would clearly be better off by getting rid of all the quests under "Additional tasks". I know Bioware will never do it because that would be just deleting all the work some of their people put into that, but maybe they should have thought about just not doing them in the first place.
Oh well, maybe with all this, they'll learn that most people would actually prefer an evolution of ME2/3 rather than ME1.
They don't add "nothing". There are people who genuinely like doing that type of shit. The same people who like collecting map icons in Assassin's Creed. Maybe that's not something a more discerning player would be interested in, but if you're not, all you have to do is ignore those quests. And you'll still be left with a 60 hour long game instead of a 100 hour long game.
a) When you're telling people to ignore parts of the game in order to have fun, you have fucked up. Was true in Inquisition with the Hinterlands being the first zone, and it's true here.
b) Those players already have their game - Assassins Creed! Why turn Mass Effect into a style of game that even Ubisoft is starting to retreat from? It's not 2012 right now. I think shifting away from the formula that worked, to go back to a formula that had significant issues and clearly still does) was a mistake from the start.
c) We've seen with Witcher 3 and now Horizon that you don't need to fill your game with this mundane crap in order to make a good game.
d) WHY THE TRANSITIONS? When Shinobi was talking about multi-part quests that spanned multiple planets this was NOT the type of content we were expecting (Or I think he was thinking about either).
I don't know... just quests? I don't give a name to every type of quests there is out there. There is the mindless MMO quests where you have to gather dozens of items out in the open, then there is the typical quests where you either kill a bunch of bad guys to reach your objective, or where you have to talk to someone in some hub or base. Which is basically what Mass Effect always has been, the only difference being that there's a lot more travel to do in Andromeda rather than a single quest being all done in the same level like in ME2 or ME3.
Anyway, it's not nearly as bad as the ME3 quests where you overhear some NPC on the Citadel, go scan some random planet without ever landing on it, go back to the Citadel and get your reward.
Despite all the arguing going on, the game would clearly be better off by getting rid of all the quests under "Additional tasks".
This is I think an indicator that the game needed a better director/direction. Like it needed someone to cut the fat, it needed the Benz or Benz equivalent.
a) When you're telling people to ignore parts of the game in order to have fun, you have fucked up. Was true in Inquisition with the Hinterlands being the first zone, and it's true here.
b) Those players already have their game - Assassins Creed! Why turn Mass Effect into a style of game that even Ubisoft is starting to retreat from? It's not 2012 right now. I think shifting away from the formula that worked, to go back to a formula that had significant issues and clearly still does) was a mistake from the start.
c) We've seen with Witcher 3 and now Horizon that you don't need to fill your game with this mundane crap in order to make a good game.
d) WHY THE TRANSITIONS? When Shinobi was talking about multi-part quests that spanned multiple planets this was NOT the type of content we were expecting (Or I think he was thinking about either).
Horizon's side-quests are by definition mundane crap. The only open world game that pulls this off with a reasonable degree of success is W3 where the side-content outshines the main story.
? I really enjoyed Horizon's side quests. They had characters who were interesting who I was cared about, and the build up with the end of the game and how that works is superb. There's not even that many of them in the game - are you talking about the corrupted zone / vantage point/ missing vessels stuff?
Fetch quests literally involve you going to a place to get an item from an NPC, and then come back to advance the story. Optional collectible quests aren't "fetch quests".
Why NPC exactly? Can a dialog be an "item" you "get"? What if it's related to the story?
As I've said, any quest which is nothing but you getting somewhere and pushing the same "use" button to complete it is a fetch quest in my opinion.
I agree with Maledict though that it doesn't matter much how you call these quests, only the fact that they are tedious, boring, uninteresting filler which generally don't even add anything to the story. MEA's biggest issue is that even the main game's quests are like this.
I don't know... just quests? I don't give a name to every type of quests there is out there. There is the mindless MMO quests where you have to gather dozens of items out in the open, then there is the typical quests where you either kill a bunch of bad guys to reach your objective, or where you have to talk to someone in some hub or base. Which is basically what Mass Effect always has been, the only difference being that there's a lot more travel to do in Andromeda rather than a single quest being all done in the same level like in ME2 or ME3.
"Just quests" isn't saying anything about the quests in question. TW3 have "just quests" as well but for some reason they are good there and bad in MEA. And yeah, I generally ignored the "tasks" quest group and done them only if they were clearly indicated on the map so I'm not even talking about these though these are pure garbage.
a) When you're telling people to ignore parts of the game in order to have fun, you have fucked up. Was true in Inquisition with the Hinterlands being the first zone, and it's true here.
b) Those players already have their game - Assassins Creed! Why turn Mass Effect into a style of game that even Ubisoft is starting to retreat from? It's not 2012 right now. I think shifting away from the formula that worked, to go back to a formula that had significant issues and clearly still does) was a mistake from the start.
c) We've seen with Witcher 3 and now Horizon that you don't need to fill your game with this mundane crap in order to make a good game.
d) WHY THE TRANSITIONS? When Shinobi was talking about multi-part quests that spanned multiple planets this was NOT the type of content we were expecting (Or I think he was thinking about either).
You and I must have had a completely different experience playing The Witcher 3. It leans into that whole AC pointless sidecontent stuff pretty fucking hard.
? I really enjoyed Horizon's side quests. They had characters who were interesting who I was cared about, and the build up with the end of the game and how that works is superb. There's not even that many of them in the game - are you talking about the corrupted zone / vantage point/ missing vessels stuff?
You and I must have had a completely different experience playing The Witcher 3. It leans into that whole AC pointless sidecontent stuff pretty fucking hard.
Sorta, some of it is pretty smart stuff, but some falls into the whole using batman detective vision Witcher senses to follow some dickhead/monster's footsteps/scents to find some hair or a shoe or something.
That's fair enough. I *really* liked the characters - it felt to me very much like the old ME games, where you only have very brief interactions with side characters but they compress a large amount of character into them which makes them interesting and elevates the content (same as witcher 3). Be it the prison guard character, the priest of the sun who wants to build peace, or the lady in the starting zone with the mentally ill outcast brother - I can remember them and liked helping them.
Heckler456 said:
You and I must have had a completely different experience playing The Witcher 3. It leans into that whole AC pointless sidecontent stuff pretty fucking hard.
Well, W3 had tasks like Me - but it didn't fill your log with them, they were just icons on the map. And even the very basic monster hunting, Witcher quests had a back story and tried to tie you into the world in a way the ME:A fail to do.
I can remember numerous side quests and characters from Horizon and Witcher 3. I absolutely struggle to do that with ME:A. And I'm clearly not alone in that opinion, so clerly they failed to land something here given the number of people unhappy.
That's fair enough. I *really* liked the characters - it felt to me very much like the old ME games, where you only have very brief interactions with side characters but they compress a large amount of character into them which makes them interesting and elevates the content (same as witcher 3). Be it the prison guard character, the priest of the sun who wants to build peace, or the lady in the starting zone with the mentally ill outcast brother - I can remember them and liked helping them.
Funny how we can have such different impressions of the characters in the game. on the plus side, it does at least indicate that they made them real characters if some people can hate them and some love them (How could anyone hate sexy, bare chested Nil! ;-) ).
Funny how we can have such different impressions of the characters in the game. on the plus side, it does at least indicate that they made them real characters if some people can hate them and some love them (How could anyone hate sexy, bare chested Nil! ;-) ).
I don't see them as characters as much as poor cardboard cutouts of someone trying to approximate characters- like most ME1 characters. That's me though.
You and I must have had a completely different experience playing The Witcher 3. It leans into that whole AC pointless sidecontent stuff pretty fucking hard.
Sorta, some of it is pretty smart stuff, but some falls into the whole using batman detective vision Witcher senses to follow some dickhead/monster's footsteps/scents to find some hair or a shoe or something.
Yeah, somebody made a thread the other day "beloved games you didn't like". After my obligatory mentions of RDR and GTA5 as tear jerkingly boring, I also mentioned TW3. Not because I didn't think it was good, but because I scratch my head trying to figure out how people think it's SO MUCH better than every other RPG with regard to what we're talking about. It's better than most, but not ZOMG GOLD STANDARD GOAT. I actually couldn't finish the game because I felt too bogged down in shit I didn't give a fuck about. Yeah I could have bum rushed the storyline, but after a while I just had no motivation.
I like Horizon a lot (though I dropped it like a hot potato for ME:A and may not go back to it until after a NG+ run of ME:A, but yeah. I like Aloy and a few others, but on most of the side stuff, I couldn't skip conversations fast enough. No different from many of ME:A's pointless NPCs in my mind, with quests and background/lore that was okay at times, but again I liked some of the background stuff you pick up in ME:A sidequests lore-wise too.
Eh, dunno. It's crazy. I really feel like I'm playing a completely different game than a lot of people around here. Though it wouldn't be the first time (exhibit A: GTA5).
a) When you're telling people to ignore parts of the game in order to have fun, you have fucked up. Was true in Inquisition with the Hinterlands being the first zone, and it's true here.
b) Those players already have their game - Assassins Creed! Why turn Mass Effect into a style of game that even Ubisoft is starting to retreat from? It's not 2012 right now. I think shifting away from the formula that worked, to go back to a formula that had significant issues and clearly still does) was a mistake from the start.
c) We've seen with Witcher 3 and now Horizon that you don't need to fill your game with this mundane crap in order to make a good game.
d) WHY THE TRANSITIONS? When Shinobi was talking about multi-part quests that spanned multiple planets this was NOT the type of content we were expecting (Or I think he was thinking about either).
a)
nonsense.
Several things are in the game for you to pick and choose what to ignore and what you like, and this obviously isn't unique to andromeda, most games do this.
I mean even in simple straight forward shooters you can choose to ignore certain guns completely if you don't like them, that doesn't mean the dev fucked up, it means the player made a choice.
In andromeda you can even choose to ignore powers and squadmates completely if you don't care for them.
b)
Oh I see now, you hate assassin's creed, your position makes sense now. Yeah just exclude more players from your game because you don't like certain elements from other games, that you could just ignore.
c)subjective
d) Transitions mask loading, that's it. It's either look at transitions, or look at loading screens.
The only annoying one imo is departing a planet when boarding the tempest. The bridge windows probably didn't work out too well when still on a planet.
My a) point was literally me responding to the person who said you should just ignore the bits you don't like. I think that's bad design. And there's a huge difference between ignoring a gun, and ignoring the fundamental content that they have literally filled the game with.
And I like Assassins Creed. I think AC2 is one of the best games of the last generation. But Assassins Creed it its own, game *not* Me, and to replace strong characters and a tightly driven narrative story with endless task and filler content stuff just isn't a good move for me. ME is ME.
Re transitions masking loading, the problem is that it's not necessary on ANY other game of this type. And you aren't telling me that ME:A is pushing my Playstation more than Horizon is. The games aren't even close graphically. Given they already stripped out one transition, I think it's less loading and just poor UI design (which is also present elsewhere in the game, so not unsurprising).
The game could cut out the minerals/bodies/planets/wreckage finding tasks and frankly most of the tasks themselves and be better for it in so far as it'd at least stop cluttering the map.
d) Transitions mask loading, that's it. It's either look at transitions, or look at loading screens.
The only annoying one imo is departing a planet when boarding the tempest. The bridge windows probably didn't work out too well when still on a planet.
In so far as the loading animation is fixed in length meaning the takeoff animation is at least as long as the load time or longer than the time to load the ship itself. Second, looking at this through a purely user experience lens, the game makes you:
Press/Hold T to board the Tempest
Watch the Tempest take off as it loads the ship interior
Select and open up the galaxy map
Click the system to travel to
Watch the ship fly there
Click the planet to travel to
Either press Tab to skip the animation or sit through the flight to the planet
Click on the landing zone
Watch an animation of landing to load the planet
Fast travel to the area you want to go to
If one wants to argue this gives you the feeling of space travel or likes the atmosphere, fine. I peresonally don't see this as being conducive to a good user experience versus selecting a fast-travel point on another planet. This at least would require at most half as many inputs, either a loading screen or a looping 0.5s-1s animation but still fewer screens. If someone wants to travel the traditional way- be my guest but I do hope BioWare addresses this IMO glaring UX and QOL problem.
I want to stress, if you prefer travelling by the means I had outlined- by all means. But, I would appreciate copying Inquisition's fast travel mechanics for those of us that would prefer it.
Yeah I'm completely at odds with what some want from future Mass Effect. More linearity is the last thing this series needs. The open spaces were much more conducive to varied playstyles and tempered the monotony of many ME2/3 missions that relied on action to the point of boredom.
The hub worlds definitely felt too cluttered and the number of mineral patches could have easily been cut in half while the resources per patch doubled. Felt this way about Horizon as well.
Also, SAM needs to learn when to shut the hell up.
Also, interrupts. Wish they had been done with choices and more frequently. However, when done they were amusing and embedded in missions that were of largely superior quality. You have to wonder if those missions were done by a specific subset of the team.
Yeah I'm completely at odds with what some want from future Mass Effect. More linearity is the last thing this series needs. The open spaces were much more conducive to varied playstyles and tempered the monotony of many ME2/3 missions that relied on action to the point of boredom.
The hub worlds definitely felt too cluttered and the number of mineral patches could have easily been cut in half while the resources per patch doubled. Felt this way about Horizon as well.
Also, SAM needs to learn when to shut the hell up.
Also, interrupts. Wish they had been done with choices and more frequently. However, when done they were amusing and embedded in missions that were of largely superior quality. You have to wonder if those missions were done by a specific subset of the team.
IMHO both implementating better fast-travel mechanics like Pokemon, Inquisition, or modded Witcher 3 would go a long way. Also yes, SAM shutting the hell up about the weather would be welcome.
Plus killing most tasks. Most of them are shite and only exist to clutter the map like the mineral scanning nonsense.
Another good example of how different people can have wildly different experiences in games. I find the notion that ME2 missions were monotonous with their combat compared to ME:A utterly and totally incomprehensible. Every single fight in ME2 was designed and placed, whereas ME:A has soooo many repeated fights in random spots on the map that serve no purpose other than filling the map.
I do think ME is different to most game series, in that it seems it can have so many passionate fans who at the same time disagree so much on what makes it good! ;-)
My a) point was literally me responding to the person who said you should just ignore the bits you don't like. I think that's bad design. And there's a huge difference between ignoring a gun, and ignoring the fundamental content that they have literally filled the game with.
And I like Assassins Creed. I think AC2 is one of the best games of the last generation. But Assassins Creed it its own, game *not* Me, and to replace strong characters and a tightly driven narrative story with endless task and filler content stuff just isn't a good move for me. ME is ME.
Re transitions masking loading, the problem is that it's not necessary on ANY other game of this type. And you aren't telling me that ME:A is pushing my Playstation more than Horizon is. The games aren't even close graphically. Given they already stripped out one transition, I think it's less loading and just poor UI design (which is also present elsewhere in the game, so not unsurprising).
A gun in a game about shooting people is a pretty fundamental piece of content. Powers in a game of having powers to build your character and actively using them in combat is a pretty fundamental piece of content.
In fact both of them are part of the "core loop" in design, as in you literally can not, not have them since the game revolves around them.
So no it's not bad design if the dev gives you a choice in what you are allowed to like and what to ignore, not all players like all things equally, and there's no way to design something that is liked equally and this is a perfect example.
You might not like some of the elements in this game, but others might, and you are free in your choice to ignore those things.
Once you start comparing different games, from different dev teams, from different studios, on different engines you're not doing yourself any favours, games aren't created equally. It's isn't even about graphics, it's about literally loading data into memory. You don't honestly believe andromeda just has the entire galaxy system just loaded into memory at all times do you? It would probably crash your ps4 if it did.
And making the planet transitions skippable isn't really comparable to just removing every other transition, since you're moving through a "map" that has already been loaded into memory when you boarded the tempest, achieving the same thing would, as mentioned above, require the game to load multiple systems or the entire galaxy into memory when you board the tempest, which is just...dumb.
If one wants to argue this gives you the feeling of space travel or likes the atmosphere, fine. I peresonally don't see this as being conducive to a good user experience versus selecting a fast-travel point on another planet. This at least would require at most half as many inputs, either a loading screen or a looping 0.5s-1s animation but still fewer screens. If someone wants to travel the traditional way- be my guest but I do hope BioWare addresses this IMO glaring UX and QOL problem.
I want to stress, if you prefer travelling by the means I had outlined- by all means. But, I would appreciate copying Inquisition's fast travel mechanics for those of us that would prefer it.
I guess, but this fast travel option would require a bit of an overhaul I think, because if you could just access the galaxy map at all times it would mean:
Galaxy map is loaded into memory always, otherwise it has to load it in every time you pause the game and click "map".
An extra simplified 2d map is loaded into memory always, this is probably a bit of programming redundancy because now you'd have 2 systems in place that do the same thing, cept one is called when you pause and the other when interacting with the console on the tempest; it also makes the tempest itself redundant.
The reason why it works so well in DA:I is exactly because you don't have that reduntant option, all traveling is done from the same 2d system because there's no "hub" (tempest) that is deemed important for the actual travel.
Once you start comparing different games, from different dev teams, from different studios, on different engines you're not doing yourself any favours, games aren't created equally. It's isn't even about graphics, it's about literally loading data into memory. You don't honestly believe andromeda just has the entire galaxy system just loaded into memory at all times do you? It would probably crash your ps4 if it did.
I don't think Horizon has it's entire world loaded into memory either though...
I don't think *any* open world game loads the entire game world in to memory. And if ME needs loading times, that's cool - but it doesn't need all of the animations, clicks and processes you go through. That's ot loading times (unless this game has longer loading times than any pother game made in the last 20 years or so). It's just poor design - strip away the stuff that isn't needed, so at least the loading time is the minimum we wait.
I don't think Horizon has it's entire world loaded into memory either though...
I don't think *any* open world game loads the entire game world in to memory. And if ME needs loading times, that's cool - but it doesn't need all of the animations, clicks and processes you go through. That's ot loading times (unless this game has longer loading times than any pother game made in the last 20 years or so). It's just poor design - strip away the stuff that isn't needed, so at least the loading time is the minimum we wait.
You are mistakingly thinking streamloading in a map system that's already in memory is the same thing as having to load another system into memory and having to dump the other system out of memory so it doesn't fill your memory and crashes the engine.
Heck in pretty much all open world games, when you fast travel in the same map you still see a loading screen, I haven't seen any cases in any large open world game where get instantanious teleportation when you fast travel. This is because those assets are normally streamloaded in, they aren't on demand, because that would mean they are actually sitting in memory at all times.
The galaxy map is an entirely different system, and the only way it's going to be available on demand, is if it's loaded in at all times, otherwise you would see a loading screen every time you paused the game and clicked map. Which is just an unnecessary amount of bloat/strain on your memory footprint.
And like I said in my previous post, there's no "good" way of solving it, without either redoing it in a way that:
1) makes the tempest redundant and extra memory bloat by having 2 systems that do the same thing.
2) deletes the 3d galaxy map entirely.
Those are your 2 options, and honestly they did pretty much the best they could UX wise with a 3D map system.
Option 1 might be better UX wise, but definitely not engine/programming wise.
Option 2 is a subjective matter.
Loading times exist in games. In open world games, they can be quite long - try using fast travel from the Nora lands to Meridian in Horizon, and you're looking at quite a decent load time. The fact that Mass Effect has load times isn't the issue.
It's with *everything* else, that feels like it was put in the game just to show off and create a feeling of being in space and a world. Diaspora listed what you go through to go to another planet quite well, and that's simply unacceptable - particularly in a game that has you do filler busy work quests spread across several planets. You can strip some of that out straight away - and if you can't, then you've fucked up design.
Again, it's not like I'm on an island complaining about this - multiple people and reviews have said the same thing. Not sure why you're defending it either - it's on the game designer to not bog you down in literally dead time, again and again. If there's some technical reason why they can't do it, then they should have looked at why that was the case and fixed it - having lovely take-off animations and a shiny map isn't worth losing so much time.
But I am getting your point, I even listed it in the 2 options to "fix" it for you.
Neither are ideal solutions. It's not fucked up design though.
Edit: I guess there is a 3rd option for making it slightly more steamlined, but that's pretty much as good as it would get:
3) add mouse over hover menus (at either galaxy or system view) that allow you to instantly land on a planet without having to select it.
By my definition, it is. The designer utterly fucked up if I'm staring at my screen with so much dead time, not actually playing the game or doing anything. People were arsey about Bloodborne's load times, and they don't compare to what you do in ME.
If the only solution to their problem was putting in all their animations and graphical effects, then they need to reframe the problem and take out the fundamental thing that's making them force you to waste so much time. Games should not be wasting the players time like this - it shows a remarkable lack of respect for the player.
If nothing else can we agree that traversal design isn't really that compatible with how some (many?) quests are designed? Basically any assignment wherein the quest chain requires you to visit another zone/world doesn't inherently work well with the extensive work that goes into simply going from point A to B.
I don't have a problem inherently with a long sequence to go to another planet- nor do I have a problem with quests that involve going to other planets. What I do have a problem with are quests that involve going to other planets but also require that ridiculous means of actually getting there. Like if I'm going to other planets for a quest... that's fine but don't put me through like 10~ steps to actually get from the planet I'm on to the other one.
Like if all the quests were designed to have their entire chain to operate on the same world I don't think the long traversal issues would be as grating since you'd be able to do everything on the world itself.
Somewhat unrelated, I'd like to think Ryder should be able to access his goddamn email from his omni tool.
If nothing else can we agree that traversal design isn't really that compatible with how some (many?) quests are designed? Basically any assignment wherein the quest chain requires you to visit another zone/world doesn't inherently work well with the extensive work that goes into simply going from point A to B.
I don't have a problem inherently with a long sequence to go to another planet- nor do I have a problem with quests that involve going to other planets. What I do have a problem with are quests that involve going to other planets but also require that ridiculous means of actually getting there. Like if I'm going to other planets for a quest... that's fine but don't put me through like 10~ steps to actually get from the planet I'm on to the other one.
I think that's fair enough. If the load and animations only happened a few times in the game, it would be okay - but because of the quest design, it force syou into them a lot more than it should.
By my definition, it is. The designer utterly fucked up if I'm staring at my screen with so much dead time, not actually playing the game or doing anything. People were arsey about Bloodborne's load times, and they don't compare to what you do in ME.
If the only solution to their problem was putting in all their animations and graphical effects, then they need to reframe the problem and take out the fundamental thing that's making them force you to waste so much time. Games should not be wasting the players time like this - it shows a remarkable lack of respect for the player.
A lack of respect...? What?
It's their game, their creative vision, you are free to not agree with it, but it's not a "lack of respect", because, again, you aren't the only person playing this, some people actually enjoy seeing all the space stuff even if it means taking more time than traversing a boring flat 2D map.
If nothing else can we agree that traversal design isn't really that compatible with how some (many?) quests are designed? Basically any assignment wherein the quest chain requires you to visit another zone/world doesn't inherently work well with the extensive work that goes into simply going from point A to B.
I don't have a problem inherently with a long sequence to go to another planet- nor do I have a problem with quests that involve going to other planets. What I do have a problem with are quests that involve going to other planets but also require that ridiculous means of actually getting there.
Yes that's pretty annoying, especially when you get a quest to talk to someone on the tempest, and then they give you a follow up to go back down to the planet...quest design in those cases could've been handled much better.
A lack of respect...? What?
It's their game, their creative vision, you are free to not agree with it, but it's not a "lack of respect", because, again, you aren't the only person playing this, some people actually enjoy seeing all the space stuff even if it means taking more time than traversing a boring flat 2D map.
Yes that's pretty annoying, especially when you get a quest to talk to someone on the tempest, and then they give you a follow up to go back down to the planet...quest design in those cases could've been handled much better.
Maybe "lack of respect" or disrespectful aren't the right terms versus say... maybe thoughtless? If we can agree that the traversal mechanics aren't really conducive for quests taking place across a plurality of regions (10 steps times the number of places you visit for that quest really adds up) then I don't think it's unreasonable to say that designing a quest that doesn't work well with the traversal mechanics is at least thoughtless. Or at least poor design; frankly I do like vast majority of the heleus and personal assignments and part of why I'm passionate about them addressing this is due to me wanting to play these quests but the game's drawn out traversal mechanics get in the way of me actually doing them.
A fetch quest is a quest which is completed after you fetch something and has almost nothing else in itself. No story, no characters, no new gameplay, nothing. Pretty much all quests in Andromeda are fetch quests.
Here's a challenge, list me a quest or mission in Mass Effect: Andromeda that doesn't have a named character or story attached to it.
Then, name a quest or mission in Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 that doesn't involve commander shepard "fetching" an item, information, or another character.
And then finally, name me any Mission in Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 that doesn't involve the player talking, moving, shooting, and/or using powers. I'm interested in learning what missions you feel in the trilogy offer new gameplay.
If nothing else can we agree that traversal design isn't really that compatible with how some (many?) quests are designed? Basically any assignment wherein the quest chain requires you to visit another zone/world doesn't inherently work well with the extensive work that goes into simply going from point A to B.
I've stated in the past, I'm firmly in the "instant fast travel to anywhere on any planet at any time takes me out of the experience" camp.
However I can agree with this statement. The laborious travel doesn't mesh well with a lot of the quest design. Far too many of the side quests have far too many links in their chains spread across too many planets. Often for no reason.
Even without touching the quest structure at all, the following would make a HUGE difference:
-Access email on omni-tool anywhere at any time.
-Use omni-tool to contact people on the same planet as you instead of traveling to them (when appropriate).
-Use the vidcom on the Tempest to contact people on other planets instead of traveling to them (when appropriate).
These simple changes would remove a significant chunk of the waiting time without removing or trivializing the game's feel of 'space travel'.
Then of course from there, yeah, fix some of the quests. Just one small example, last night I was on Elaaden investigating some wreck, then in order to confront some dude SAM suggested setting up a meeting in a cave on Kadara, because reasons. Why.
More quests that took place in multiple areas should have leveraged in-universe mechanics such as e-mail and especially the vid screen on the Tempest. The far future doesn't shouldn't be as reliant on face-to-face.
Another good example of how different people can have wildly different experiences in games. I find the notion that ME2 missions were monotonous with their combat compared to ME:A utterly and totally incomprehensible. Every single fight in ME2 was designed and placed, whereas ME:A has soooo many repeated fights in random spots on the map that serve no purpose other than filling the map.
I do think ME is different to most game series, in that it seems it can have so many passionate fans who at the same time disagree so much on what makes it good! ;-)
Compare the designed fights. Most of the earlier games are just coiled corridors compared to ME:A encounters. The Kett base on Voeld is a good example. Engagement ranges are very large and encounter spaces are full of buildings instead of the old 3 lanes of cover to choose from.
Maybe "lack of respect" or disrespectful aren't the right terms versus say... maybe thoughtless? If we can agree that the traversal mechanics aren't really conducive for quests taking place across a plurality of regions (10 steps times the number of places you visit for that quest really adds up) then I don't think it's unreasonable to say that designing a quest that doesn't work well with the traversal mechanics is at least thoughtless. Or at least poor design; frankly I do like vast majority of the heleus and personal assignments and part of why I'm passionate about them addressing this is due to me wanting to play these quests but the game's drawn out traversal mechanics get in the way of me actually doing them.
I agree with localizing quests when necessary, but there were maybe 2 such quests that I ever really had the overwhelming need to complete at the expense of every other quest. Mostly they were there in the background as I went from area to area completing other quests. There has to be a medium between every quest takes place in one spot and the organic feeling of solving multiple quests while visiting various locales.
I have a bigger problem with many of the quests themselves. Both MEA and Horizon really leaned on the detective mode crutch. Why I need to walk around slowly with a flashlight when within world the tech should be seamlessly integrated into my HUD is one thing. Why I need to do it so often instead of integrating it as a proper game mechanic is another. Somewhere between 'point-and-click adventure' and 'point at everything we'll do the rest' exists an interesting system. This reminds me of what Zelda did for view point tower. You still have the same old tower seen in every game, but the game insists that the player does a small amount of work on their own. The same could be done with obvious environmental clues that still make the player feel a little clever.
When Cyberpunk arrives I'm going to be jaded as hell about detective mode so I hope CDPR is doing something different.
I mean, my implant with SAM and my omni-tool can unlock the mysteries of tech that makes the reapers look bitch-made. But getting emails and vid-calls on it? Absurd.
I have a bigger problem with many of the quests themselves. Both MEA and Horizon really leaned on the detective mode crutch. Why I need to walk around slowly with a flashlight when within world the tech should be seamlessly integrated into my HUD is one thing. Why I need to do it so often instead of integrating it as a proper game mechanic is another.
The in-universe explanation for this is that the "pathfinder scanner" is a much more focused and powerful piece of tech than any of the other scanners, even the ones on board the tempest.
The design reason is because why would you ever turn it off? it highlights enemies and interactables, they were probably trying to avoid a batman arkham detective vision situation where you'd just keep it on at all times during encounters, and in this case exploration as well cause it highlights everything.
I mean, my implant with SAM and my omni-tool can unlock the mysteries of tech that makes the reapers look bitch-made. But getting emails and vid-calls on it? Absurd.
And now that I think about it SAM does relay some messages and always tells you when you have new mail or calls.
SAM is basically a pager. Not the kind with the big screen that could display texts either. First gen.
This is going to bug me a lot more now than it did before lol.
The in-universe explanation for this is that the "pathfinder scanner" is a much more focused and powerful piece of tech than any of the other scanners, even the ones on board the tempest.
The design reason is because why would you ever turn it off? it highlights enemies and interactables, they were probably trying to avoid a batman arkham detective vision situation where you'd just keep it on at all times during encounters, and in this case exploration as well cause it highlights everything.
Agreed they're trying to avoid what happened to Deux Ex: Human Revolution and a few other games of that era when everything in the environment was flashing as well as Batmanitis. I went from Batman to Horizon to MEA and I enjoyed them all. The detective mode feels like it's drifting further away from something that adds to that enjoyment.
Perhaps borrowing systems from Mass Effect 1 and other RPGs could help. Instead of tying some quest progression to scanners contextualize solutions through Ryder's profiles and abilities. The Omega DLC had a nice little moment where engineers could solve a problem, but that's been abandoned. Instead of activating the scanner Ryder could be given some dialog based on the current profile instructing SAM on what to do. I don't have the solution, but I hope someone does.
Here's a challenge, list me a quest or mission in Mass Effect: Andromeda that doesn't have a named character or story attached to it.
Then, name a quest or mission in Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 that doesn't involve commander shepard "fetching" an item, information, or another character.
And then finally, name me any Mission in Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 that doesn't involve the player talking, moving, shooting, and/or using powers. I'm interested in learning what missions you feel in the trilogy offer new gameplay.
Story is more than "character with a name attached to a mission" and this is precisely the type of "story" most MEA missions have.
As for the trilogy - is this a serious question? Between Mako driving with shooting, exploring Citadel hub meeting new alien races, pure arcade levels of ME2, missions where you didn't even have to shoot once to complete them and epic main story missions filled with new characters and tension I'm sure you'll be able to find something completely missing from MEA on your own.
Trilogy had its share of pure fetch quests, sure. But that was ten fucking years ago, and one would have hoped that we're evolving forwards, not backwards. MEA as it is have worse quests than ME1 had.
It's amazing that you spent so much time on a game with no redeeming qualities. I pretty much spent the entire week of release playing this and didn't get to 100 hours, so I applaud your commitment to something that you didn't like, though I can't relate.
Problem is that there is no other space RPG I can play at the moment or even this year. So I'm basically stuck with MEA if I want a game of this type. Doesn't mean that I have to like it.
Finished the game. What a disappointment. This is literally the worst ME game out of all four, they even managed to beat ME3 in my books. They should've called it "Mass Effect: Fetch Quest" instead of "Andromeda". There is literally no other quests in this game, even the main quests are all the same fetch quest
(land on a planet, activate _three_ monoliths (why not ten I wonder? someone suddenly felt like it's too much?), activate a vault, rinse, repeat)
.
The biggest shocker for me personally was the loss of _everything_ good from ME2 and ME3. I kinda fully expected them to drop the ball on the ME1's plot and exploration parts so this was no surprise. But the loss of good characters and their backstories _and_ the loss of great main plot missions - this I didn't expect. After completing the game and spending ~100 hours on it the only mission which I remember is the
video night mission, and only because it took me freaking forever to _fetch_ different shit from all around the cluster.
I'm struggling to think of anything good about the game here. Shooting? I don't know, seemed rather mediocre to me. Graphics? Very mediocre both artistically and technically. Driving? Yeah, all the fun of that was killed off by removing the Mako's turret from Nomad.
As it is the game is definitely overrated as I personally would give it 5/10 at best. It's just a total train wreck of a brain dead story, empty characters and boring as hell gameplay - and that's even disregarding a mountain of technical issues. So so disappointed.
It's amazing that you spent so much time on a game with no redeeming qualities. I pretty much spent the entire week of release playing this and didn't get to 100 hours, so I applaud your commitment to something that you didn't like, though I can't relate.
No it isn't, that's your own personal interpretation. By clear definition a story is:
"an account of something that happened. Stories can be imaginary, traditional, or true"
"a fictional narrative shorter than a novel"
"events in the life of a person or the existence of a thing, or such events as a subject for narration"
Now, let's apply this definition to a mission/task you likely believe to be a "fetch quest" under your stringent guidelines.
"A father leaves behind his dying children on Earth and travels to Andromeda with the Initiative, only to die in a Kett attack while trying to set up survey beacons essential to the expansion of the colony on Eos. A pathfinder discovers his death and proceeds to continue setting the beacons up as the man attempted to do, only to become confused as he/she hears short bursts of motivational audio. The pathfinder finishes the mans task, securing essential information for Prodomos while also learning the sad truth about the mans family. Ghosts are put to rest and narrative of an unlucky man is concluded."
Sure seems to fit the textbook story classification to me. We've got pretext, a beginning, a middle with a twist, and a bittersweet ending.
Throw any task, assignment, and non-priority mission at me and I'm sure we'd be more than able to lay out a textbook example of how it's a story.
As for the trilogy - is this a serious question? Between Mako driving with shooting, exploring Citadel hub meeting new alien races, pure arcade levels of ME2, missions where you didn't even have to shoot once to complete them and epic main story missions filled with new characters and tension I'm sure you'll be able to find something completely missing from MEA on your own.
You shooting and driving the Mako is the same at the beginning and the end of the game. You shooting and reloading guns is the same at the beginning and end of the game. You interacting with dialogue choices are the same at the beginning and end of the game. You very clearly stated that fetch quests don't introduce new gameplay elements. I then proceeded to call you out on what missions, exactly throughout the entire trilogy, introduce new gameplay elements. You still have yet to do that.
No it isn't, that's your own personal interpretation. By clear definition a story is:
"an account of something that happened. Stories can be imaginary, traditional, or true"
"a fictional narrative shorter than a novel"
"events in the life of a person or the existence of a thing, or such events as a subject for narration"
Now, let's apply this definition to a mission/task you likely believe to be a "fetch quest" under your stringent guidelines.
"A father leaves behind his dying children on Earth and travels to Andromeda with the Initiative, only to die in a Kett attack while trying to set up survey beacons essential to the expansion of the colony on Eos. A pathfinder discovers his death and proceeds to continue setting the beacons up as the man attempted to do, only to become confused as he/she hears short bursts of motivational audio. The pathfinder finishes the mans task, securing essential information for Prodomos while also learning the sad truth about the mans family. Ghosts are put to rest and narrative of an unlucky man is concluded."
Sure seems to fit the textbook story classification to me. We've got pretext, a beginning, a middle with a twist, and a bittersweet ending.
Throw any task, assignment, and non-priority mission at me and I'm sure we'd be more than able to lay out a textbook example of how it's a story.
You shooting and driving the Mako is the same at the beginning and the end of the game. You shooting and reloading guns is the same at the beginning and end of the game. You interacting with dialogue choices are the same at the beginning and end of the game. You very clearly stated that fetch quests don't introduce new gameplay elements. I then proceeded to call you out on what missions, exactly throughout the entire trilogy, introduce new gameplay elements. You still have yet to do that.
Good lord, ME:A is really starting to piss me off in a few places. The checkpoints in large open areas are just plain piss poor and can set you back quite a ways in the event of a cheap death. Seriously, this has got to be better.
Also, am I the only who finds it annoying how drawn out a bunch of the big fights can be.
The fights with Giant Remnant and the Orb bosses are just not fun, IMO. They got old real quick.
While the game has some good moments, just the repetition and lack of any characters I give anything close to a damn about make for an underwhelming experience on a game that had tempered expectations to begin with.
Despite ALL of that, I do feel that they have something to work with in making future games better.
Good lord, ME:A is really starting to piss me off in a few places. The checkpoints in large open areas are just plain piss poor and can set you back quite a ways in the event of a cheap death. Seriously, this has got to be better.
Also, am I the only who finds it annoying how drawn out a bunch of the big fights can be.
The fights with Giant Remnant and the Orb bosses are just not fun, IMO. They got old real quick.
While the game has some good moments, just the repetition and lack of any characters I give anything close to a damn about make for an underwhelming experience on a game that had tempered expectations to begin with.
Despite ALL of that, I do feel that they have something to work with in making future games better.
I think Advent settled just off the map on Eos, but I could be wrong, since I hit 100% viability on Eos after that mission and moved on to exploring Kadara.
