I Shouldn't Have Feared The Reapers

[TheCaptain]

Thinking back to it, I just found out that I didn't even feel the urgency with regards to a timely return to earth; it felt more important to come back in force rather than soon; also, I had to "wait" for the crucible to be finished anyway.

Could be that Anderson usually reported that they were doing as well as they could under the circumstances; people still died by the millions, but the survivors would have the best chance if I "brought back every fleet I can".

Might be because I played most of the game with a Galactic Readiness of 100 %. Multiplayer was fun.

 

[WanderingFool]

2. Because I heard how bad the ending was, and didn't want to rush to experience it.

Thats how I managed to not miss those quests. I always make sure I head to the Citadel, just so I dont miss out on any relics I found that could help the war effort (Im... slightly, in denial of the end. As I only rented the game to check out how it compares to the previous two, im not in a hurry to buy it for real, at least until I know what Bioware plans to do.)

Also, Im very happy I didnt miss out on meeting Thane. Otherwise, I would have missed a very good bit of emotional impact.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

The problem with eliminating or streamlining the side quests in the game is that Bioware games are already fairly linear, and without the side quests, you would have something a lot like Final Fantasy X in structure. I know a lot of people like that game, but when it came out, a lot of people complained that it was just a straight path with no room for deviation(and then FFXIII came out). If Bioware went that route, you really would have Call of Mass: Modern War Effect.

The scanning game, though? That can die in a fire. I would prefer more mini-missions to liberate forces and resources than scanning.

I'll give you an example using Dragon Age Origins.
During the quest 'An Unlikely Scholar' Dagna asks you to go ask the Circle of Magi if she can study there. If you talk to her again before you leave she says "You're back? But it takes a minimum of two weeks and four days to make the journey to the Circle Tower and back."

So while the world is literally coming to an end and i'm trying to secure Dwarven troops so that everyone in the world doesn't end up dead, she expects me to go off on an 18 day trip to the tower to see if she can go read some books?

The same goes for ME3, so while literally millions upon millions of people are dying, you expect me to take a trip to the Volus homeworld to find a book that'll give me 5 war assets, instead of maybe curing the genophage so that the Krogan will stop the Turians from going extinct?

I like having side quests, I have an obsession with getting 100% completion so I scour EVERYWHERE again and again before i do every main quest so i don't miss anything. But it annoys me and it cheapens the experience because it seems like the reapers are just sitting around while im having a tea break.

 

[WanderingFool]

Yeah, that's always been a problem in Mass Effect games. Shepard has to go and hunt down Saren before he destroys the Citadel! ...so she goes and collects squadmates. Shepard has to assault the Collector base before they kill more innocent civilians! ...so she goes and collects even more squadmates.

While that is true for ME2, in ME1, you had two of your squad mates before you even finished Eden Prime. And you had three more from just trying to find evidence against Saren. The only one you do go looking for is Liara, and you actually need her more for her understanding of the Protheans than as a squad mate. So Me1 had a means of getting squad mates just like ME3... in fact, you actually get atleast three squad mates before you are able to even get to the Citadel.

Really, its only ME2 where it seems odd that Im trying to save human colonies and fight the reapers, yet had to waste time finding squadmates. I think you have maybe 4 or five missions total that actually are part of the main mission (stop the collectors). All the rest are pointless (storywise) side missions or squad mate recovery/loyalty missions.

Another thing I didnt really like about ME2...

 

[Quesa]

This speaks specifically to why I did not purchase ME3. In ME1, you could take your time because Saren had no idea where his objective was. In ME2, you could take your time because the side quests offered as much of a chance of fighting the Reapers and preparing the universe than working for Cerberus. The full force of a Reaper invasion? I couldn't possibly get into the 'wander, explore and discover' mindset.

 

[370999]

Really, its only ME2 where it seems odd that Im trying to save human colonies and fight the reapers, yet had to waste time finding squadmates. I think you have maybe 4 or five missions total that actually are part of the main mission (stop the collectors). All the rest are pointless (storywise) side missions or squad mate recovery/loyalty missions.

Another thing I didnt really like about ME2...

In fairness to ME2, the reasoning behind that is because of how completely unknowable the collectors are, you are trying to assemble a team which could give you a fighting chance. The resolving their personal issues does stand out a bit but it's partly related to getting them in the right frame of mood for the mission, like any good suicide mission you are trying to deal with any lingering problems to ensure full commitment.

 

[Frotality]

well every time games try to give you a REAL sense of urgency (like majoras mask or pikmin) it always ends up just being a giant annoyance hanging over your experience, a timer looming in the background reminding you to stop having fun and get on with it.

it is of course great that ME3 could make you actually want to hurry up on your own, but really stupid that they left sidequests in the way that they were. of course, it is obvious that most RPG aspects of ME3 are artifacts of what the series was SUPPOSED to be instead of what we got when they decided to ditch drew's plot (and one would argue, ditch their original fanbase). i think ME3 has to be fairly unique in how you look at it, because it is painfully obvious that what we got, while excellent, is not how the trilogy was planned.

this isnt really an issue of standard RPG conventions being incompatible with a more cinematic experience, its an issue of ME3 being incompatible with its original intent. RPG's generally have issues with sidequests feeling superfluous and rather detached from the story, but given the insane sense of urgency thrown at you in ME3, it is almost impossible for anything outside direct and immediate action to the main plot to not feel like, "well, thats another 3.6 million people dead because i was dicking around in a bar".

the plot of the game REALLY does not befit an RPG. it is more befitting a zombie survival game where you get 2 minutes of break before the next slavering horde comes. you really cant have a desperate struggle against the freaking apocalypse alongside a space opera. video games must be paced more like TV shows than movies: take your time building up to the apocalypse, so that when it comes its like, "OH MY GOD SHIT IS GETTING REAL" because it is a significant break from routine, not a 2 minute cutscene followed by "oh i guess the apocalypse is here" like we got. again, ME3 was a great and engaging game, but really, really misplaced. like buying a DVD of the godfather and opening it to find an audio tape of lord of the rings.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

WARNING: Mass Effect 2 spoilers in here

This seems terribly nit-picky to me. I suppose if you want to you could fault the game for not making it urgent enough but then you get the issue of ME2 where you're forced to either skip a bunch of the game or have a bunch of your NPC's get turned into reaper slurpies.

Story-wise, a forced timer adds tension but game-wise, this locks out a bunch of stuff. I feel that you need to meet the game half-way here...

Cerberus attacks the Citadel? How? Do they have their own fleet of ships and army or something?

I thought it was pretty well implied that Cerberus was a very powerful and VERY rich organization based on Mass Effect 2. I mean, they obviously had the abilities and financial backing to raise someone from the dead...

Yeah I felt that was a problem I had with ME2, but I do agree that not having the forced story quests does take out the tension. On the flip side, I didn't do any side missions in ME2 so I would have time to get Loyalty from my squadmates and even then there wasn't enough time. Its one of the big reasons why I didn't like Dead Rising, I just don't like being funneled into playing a part of the game where I could be enjoying this other part instead.

I think the only game in recent memory to do the 'Sword of Damocles' rather well was inFAMOUS 2, an often underrated gem in my opinion. I could do the side quests, but I felt as though the danger was still omnipresent (with the big ol burned map, and the Beats is this far away from raping you again).

 

[Yeager942]

It's a shame the ending butchers those feelings.

 

[Eric Morales]

Losing sight of the ultimate goal is a common problem in western RPGs, but in the abstract its an acceptable tradeoff if we sacrifice urgency for freedom. After all, the free roaming and exploration focus is probably the strong suit of RPGs like Skyrim and Fallout. I wouldn't write off side quests entirely, but tying them back to the main plot whenever possible is probably smart. Mass Effect 3 actually does this really well in some places, like when you're prompted to investigate a Cerberus presence at the ground to space cannon on Tuchunka, it's related to the overarching story, and its easy to understand how doing or NOT doing that quest might affect your mission.

Now when it comes to non-sequiter "My wife has been kidnapped by gnolls" side quests, those could probably afford to be phased out of RPGs.

Interestingly, I found myself punished for meta-gaming in ME2. When the collectors abducted my crew, initially I was all psyched to save them, but I got sidetracked and ended up reasoning that "it's not like the game is keeping track of how many quests I do." Well, turns out it was...

 

[tzimize]

I kinda felt the same way about Shep's dilly dallying on the Citadel.

"Oh look, Shep's doing some embarrasing Shepard dance."

-------------- meanwhile on Earth --------------

"HELP US, SHEPARD!!! PLEASE!!! OH GOD, WE CAN'T HOLD OUT MUCH LONGER!!!"

Sorta killed some of that looming threat.

While this is true, its also human to block the stress for a little while at least. I can relate to what you're saying, but at the same time. My Shepard was on the citadel a few times through the game (ME3). And even if people were dying in the billions...Shepards responsibility was to see the big picture. How spending one more hour making diplomatic relations to the asari could save millions later on earth. How actually relaxing for a few minutes at the citadel, and have a drink could relieve stress and keep you from making a horribly wrong decision later because you're too tightly strung.

Thats how I rationalized it at least, and it doesnt sound too bad in my ears. Is it an easy decision? No, but more or less nothing was easy in ME3

 

[Gerishnakov]

I have to admit that weaving side quests into the main plot is definitely something ME1 did better than both 2 & 3.

When you arrive on the citadel for the first time in ME1 you pick up a tonne of side quests because the game encourages you to explore the area. If you can't complete them all on that first visit you're given opportunities later in the game to complete them because the main story forces you to come back to the citadel, and, unlike in ME3, everything hasn't changed or been screwed up.

Perhaps the main quest of ME3 could have had Shep returning to the citadel more often for priority reasons, reasons that wouldn't irrevocably change the citadel, in order to allow the player to move far more naturally into the side quests there.

Stuff out in the galaxy is totally understandable for me - you're building war assets.

 

[T3hSource]

I never had that sense of urgency,Mass Effect can be immersible,but not the same way as it is to others.I know there's nothing to rush to no matter how urgent it's said to be,I know I can waste all the time in the world,so I'm breaking that part of my willing sense of belief,to enhance my experience by playing ALL the content I can find.
On Mass Effect 1 I went to almost every planet,in ME2 and ME3 I've made sure that every star sector has 100% completion.
That's what I get for being a completionist whore.
Same problem with Assassin's Creed 2,a shit load of collectibles plenty of contracts,but I paced them along with the story missions as much as I could,yes it brakes up the story pace,but doing all that content after you're done with the main plot will really feel like a grind.

 

[Evilpigeon]

A large part of the appeal of an RPG for me is that it's possible to play through the games in vastly different ways, railroading people through content does not seem the best way to do this. Nor for that matter do RPGs fit well with the idea of a pressing and immediate narrative: The world is in danager and the only person who can save it is currently level one and struggling to take out a rat in a prison somewhere.

RPGs are about developing as a character and the best ones structure their stories to give you time to do this. What would I have suggested for Mass Effect? have the levelling continue from previous games when you import your character, the gameplay changes they made were mostly bullshit anyway...

The more linear a game becomes (I don't just mean, storywise I also include variety in the way you can level your characters, number of problem solutions etcs.. ) the harder it is to call it an RPG.

 

[Dastardly]

I Shouldn't Have Feared The Reapers

Believing in the story screwed up my game of Mass Effect 3

Read Full Article

A lot of issues came out of Mass Effect's inconsistent handling of the Reapers as a galactic threat. We oscillate back and forth between "they're just really strong" and "they're unkillable death spewers." We're shifting from "We're in immediate danger of extinction" and "We're kinda approaching the endangered species list."

In that sense, I don't think that side quests are the issue in and of themselves. It's more that the overall tempo of the story has to be carefully managed. Even without the side quests, ME3 had some issues maintaining a consistent tone and tempo.

Where side quests do need some love, though, is in making sure they feel a bit more 'on the way.' Mass Effect had issues with the side quests being so important to character elements and preparation for the ending.

(Maybe a better system would have been trimming down the side quests' connection to Readiness, and instead just having them add to Reputation and a sense of Notoriety. Then, instead of each individual mission pledging a new resource to your cause (though there should be a few), you'd be updated periodically to see how many more folks have signed up because you're Shepard. This would happen automatically (or, you know, as though there are other people out trying to build support for your cause), but would be based on how well-known and well-loved you've made yourself.

The earlier in the game you gain that notoreity, the faster your growth, the longer you wait, the harder it is to get support. Now we've tied the side quests directly to the tempo of the game.)

 

[cynicalsaint1]

While I agree with a lot of your points - and this is a problem that anything but super linear RPGs have - of course as soon as you take away sidequests and the such fans will start screaming about the game being too linear. So its a bit of a conundrum.

I will say reading through the Codex helped with this problem a little and put things into perspective. There's an entry (can't remember which one off the top of my head) that explicitly mentions that, at their current rate, it will take the Reapers about a decade to completely wipe out the population of Earth.

 

[Right Hook]

I think this is an excellent idea, it isn't a problem for me at all because I've played so many RPGs I know the deal by now but it would be really nice if you didn't have to know the deal and things were just laid out for you, still giving you choice but making it very hard to skip something on accident. Great idea for a game like Mass Effect, terrible idea for a game like Skyrim.

 

[WanderingFool]

Really, its only ME2 where it seems odd that Im trying to save human colonies and fight the reapers, yet had to waste time finding squadmates. I think you have maybe 4 or five missions total that actually are part of the main mission (stop the collectors). All the rest are pointless (storywise) side missions or squad mate recovery/loyalty missions.

Another thing I didnt really like about ME2...

In fairness to ME2, the reasoning behind that is because of how completely unknowable the collectors are, you are trying to assemble a team which could give you a fighting chance. The resolving their personal issues does stand out a bit but it's partly related to getting them in the right frame of mood for the mission, like any good suicide mission you are trying to deal with any lingering problems to ensure full commitment.

Oh yeah, I get that. But still, I was personally fine with the six Squad members setup in ME1. I felt that those six squad mates were more flushed out. Hell, I only cared about maybe half the squad mates (minus the two DLC characters), and of those two of them were already squad mates from ME1. I would actually have been fine with a few more mates, if they served a more support role and not a direct comabt role. As much as I loved Mordon, I never took him on any missions, save his loyalty mission obviously.

Course, this is all just me.