170 réponses à ce sujet

[Bamboozalist]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Yes and what's your point? I assume you like ME2 better so you already got what you wanted. Some however are not too fond of ME2 for whatever reasons and that should be respected. 

Why does this not happen on these forums? It seems like some people find it necessary to make fun of people who don't like or worship ME2. Or is that just me?

Some people just don't understand that others may not enjoy, or feel betrayed that the second chapter of a trilogy of games barely ressembles the original in too numerous elements, that a lot of what the original introduced that was unique or not got cut off. ME2 is so much different than ME1, why can't people understand that some ME1 fans expected the game to be both enjoyable to them and follow the original in a similar way? We all thought we were going to get Mass Effect Two, and for a big part we got something entirely different and unnapealing to us. Can't people also understand that a true sequel should cater to fans of the "series" first, rather than people who haven't even played the original? ME2 was basically just another game in the same universe.

Because people spent hours and hours ****ing about all that stuff in ME1. People complained about elevators so they got cut. People complained about the boring lifeless balls in ME1 so we got vibrant but short and linear side missions, etc... and it's not just like a few people either, a large vocal majority of people complained about that stuff, so Bioware got rid of it, and critically and financially it worked for them.

You act like that stuff was cut to cater to the new people but it was people who liked the first game and said "Hey Bioware you made a great game, but this, this, and this kinda sucked so can you do better in the sequel?"

[BringerOfChaos]

 Well, the first two Mass Effect games were art.

Turning Mass Effect into your standard/sup-par space movie with a controller won't make it art.

tl;dr You don't have to impersonate another form of art to be a masterpiece of art. 

**** bro, Bayonetta was art.

[-flashblade-]

As far as I am concerned Mass Effect 3 is allready a complete disappointment. I groaned when I saw the reveal trailer. So the reapers are coming to Earth in force, eh? For what reason exactly besides it being the homeworld of our species and to make the players emotionally invested? I guess not much at all. Makes absolutely no sense. There are way more important planets and the citadel that need to be visited first. Actually I hate how this is looking with a passion.

BioWare completely failed to portray a machine race that as far as we know could be at least a  few hundred thousand if not a million years more technologically advanced. The first Gulf War showed what about 30 years of military development can do. They rendered the enemy absolutely helpless. So I am suppossed to believe that the races of the galaxy stand a chance against the reapers? Yeah right.

The idea of Shepard effecting the outcome of the final battle personally is simply beyond ludicrous. I allready thought that the fight against the reaper core and even more so the fight against the reaper larva was borderline. It felt way too much like one of those side-scrolling shooters R-Type for example or Xenon where you shoot the weakpoints of the larger enemy to destroy them. I would really hope we don't see something like this again, but I am willing to bet we will.

The ending I would have liked to see would have been a desperate attempt to cut off the reapers from the milky way therefore trapping them in darkspace. Maybe 1 or 2 reapers actually involved in a huge space battle where they literally chew through fleets of ships of the other races. That would have not stopped them forever of course but they would have to inch thousands of years through darkspace before reaching the milky way and by that point Shepard would have been so long dead that it does not matter at all.

That would have been a realistic ending to the reaper threat, but the idea of sending them packing is ridiculous nonsense par excelance, not with the technological edge that they simply SHOULD possess.

[BringerOfChaos]

-flashblade- wrote...

As far as I am concerned Mass Effect 3 is allready a complete disappointment. I groaned when I saw the reveal trailer. So the reapers are coming to Earth in force, eh? For what reason exactly besides it being the homeworld of our species and to make the players emotionally invested? I guess not much at all. Makes absolutely no sense. There are way more important planets and the citadel that need to be visited first. Actually I hate how this is looking with a passion.

BioWare completely failed to portray a machine race that as far as we know could be at least a  few hundred thousand if not a million years more technologically advanced. The first Gulf War showed what about 30 years of military development can do. They rendered the enemy absolutely helpless. So I am suppossed to believe that the races of the galaxy stand a chance against the reapers? Yeah right.

The idea of Shepard effecting the outcome of the final battle personally is simply beyond ludicrous. I allready thought that the fight against the reaper core and even more so the fight against the reaper larva was borderline. It felt way too much like one of those side-scrolling shooters R-Type for example or Xenon where you shoot the weakpoints of the larger enemy to destroy them. I would really hope we don't see something like this again, but I am willing to bet we will.

The ending I would have liked to see would have been a desperate attempt to cut off the reapers from the milky way therefore trapping them in darkspace. Maybe 1 or 2 reapers actually involved in a huge space battle where they literally chew through fleets of ships of the other races. That would have not stopped them forever of course but they would have to inch thousands of years through darkspace before reaching the milky way and by that point Shepard would have been so long dead that it does not matter at all.

That would have been a realistic ending to the reaper threat, but the idea of sending them packing is ridiculous nonsense par excelance, not with the technological edge that they simply SHOULD possess.

Stop trying to make sense out of a fictional game. The story serves its purpose.

Why don't you make a game in the future? Before you do that, think about this: Somewhere on the internet, someone will be complaining about insignificant plot holes you left in the game. 

If the reapers were as bad ass as they made them out to be then they could've destroyed everyone in the first game. That would be much of a game though.

This is a classic case of making the antagonists too powerful in comparison to the protagonists. 
You can't make sense of it. You just hurt yourself/not enjoy the game. 

[Bamboozalist]

-flashblade- wrote...

As far as I am concerned Mass Effect 3 is allready a complete disappointment. I groaned when I saw the reveal trailer. So the reapers are coming to Earth in force, eh? For what reason exactly besides it being the homeworld of our species and to make the players emotionally invested? I guess not much at all. Makes absolutely no sense. There are way more important planets and the citadel that need to be visited first. Actually I hate how this is looking with a passion.

BioWare completely failed to portray a machine race that as far as we know could be at least a  few hundred thousand if not a million years more technologically advanced. The first Gulf War showed what about 30 years of military development can do. They rendered the enemy absolutely helpless. So I am suppossed to believe that the races of the galaxy stand a chance against the reapers? Yeah right.

The idea of Shepard effecting the outcome of the final battle personally is simply beyond ludicrous. I allready thought that the fight against the reaper core and even more so the fight against the reaper larva was borderline. It felt way too much like one of those side-scrolling shooters R-Type for example or Xenon where you shoot the weakpoints of the larger enemy to destroy them. I would really hope we don't see something like this again, but I am willing to bet we will.

The ending I would have liked to see would have been a desperate attempt to cut off the reapers from the milky way therefore trapping them in darkspace. Maybe 1 or 2 reapers actually involved in a huge space battle where they literally chew through fleets of ships of the other races. That would have not stopped them forever of course but they would have to inch thousands of years through darkspace before reaching the milky way and by that point Shepard would have been so long dead that it does not matter at all.

That would have been a realistic ending to the reaper threat, but the idea of sending them packing is ridiculous nonsense par excelance, not with the technological edge that they simply SHOULD possess.

It takes them centuries to harvest a galaxy. They kinda suck.

[BringerOfChaos]

Bennyjammin79 wrote...

[cachx]

I just want it to be a fun and compelling experience like the previous 2 were. (Well sorta, I'm long past pretending that ME1 was "fun").

And that's all I got to say.

[Soldat13]

cachx wrote...

I just want it to be a fun and compelling experience like the previous 2 were. (Well sorta, I'm long past pretending that ME1 was "fun").

And that's all I got to say.

So what do you think made ME2 fun? Knowing this will help us know what you expect in ME3.


I think that ME1 was fun because the story was intriguing and the action was good. With ME2 they dumbed the story while focusing on more action but it was still a good combo. There has been a quite a bit of time between ME2 and the announce of ME3. I hope they bring a greater story into it while keeping a similar battle system so that we still have improved combat. However without the story then the game is just lasers and explosions. Very dull. VERY DULL.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Bamboozalist wrote...

Because people spent hours and hours ****ing about all that stuff in ME1. People complained about elevators so they got cut. People complained about the boring lifeless balls in ME1 so we got vibrant but short and linear side missions, etc... and it's not just like a few people either, a large vocal majority of people complained about that stuff, so Bioware got rid of it, and critically and financially it worked for them.

You act like that stuff was cut to cater to the new people but it was people who liked the first game and said "Hey Bioware you made a great game, but this, this, and this kinda sucked so can you do better in the sequel?"

Because gamers going on forums are far from the majority of a game's player base. Only a small fraction of ME1's buyers actually post on these forums, as much as people complain, there's what we call vocal minorities, vocal majorities, but all in all, it's still a minority however you put it. Plus, I really don't see a big difference in waiting time between elevators and loading screens, if anything, like with everything else they removed, they could have improved on it.

But it's not all about elevators and such, planet exploration, one of the most unique things about ME2 got scrapped entirely. They took out unique things out of ME and made it all the more similar to other games. As much as I think the shooting was more fluid and playable, fun ultimately, it's too damn similar to any other third person shooters out there, at least ME1 mixed the shooting with RPG elements in a more or less satisfying way, at least it was unique. Now, the vast majority of what is unique to ME is useless gimmicks to waste your time in. And again, I don't see the point in listening to the people on the forums, no one can ever agree with themselves, you change it or not, nothing will change in the long run, why then not try to improve things for people who liked those things rather than scrap big elements of what made the game as it is in the first place? ME2 barely feels like a sequel in too many ways. It's like a reboot. In fact, you could destroy each and every copy of ME1 and you wouldn't even notice a thing. It's like telling those who truly loved the game that it's too bad, that they're rethinking everything and you may very well not like it. Of course, I bought ME2 thinking it was a true sequel to ME1 in every aspect - not just gameplay but story too.

[s0meguy6665]

No it won't. It'll be a dumbed down EA piece of ****, only a shadow of what it could've become.

[Evil Johnny 666]

BringerOfChaos wrote...
Stop trying to make sense out of a fictional game. The story serves its purpose.

Why don't you make a game in the future? Before you do that, think about this: Somewhere on the internet, someone will be complaining about insignificant plot holes you left in the game. 

If the reapers were as bad ass as they made them out to be then they could've destroyed everyone in the first game. That would be much of a game though.

This is a classic case of making the antagonists too powerful in comparison to the protagonists. 
You can't make sense of it. You just hurt yourself/not enjoy the game.

Seriously, anyone care having real arguments? Someone's inability to make a game doesn't impair him of judgement. The only difference between a game developper and a gamer is that the game developper can make games, their tastes/judgement/whatever are no more valid. It's not because you can make games that they're necessarily good, nor that's because you are a gamer that you can't think for yourself and have tastes. We don't care if he may leave plot holes if he ever makes a game, what we care is that Bioware did leave obvious plot holes. I'm not talking solely ME3 trailer here, but ME2 had loads of them. Seriously, as a game designer you have to do your best to leave plot holes out, to make the story as coherent possible, particularly when making a big universe like this and making a trilogy. No plot hole is insignificant, it immidiately lowers the quality of the story. How can you top rate something that has plot holes, no matter how small they are? Some in ME2 were so obvious, it only shows either the writers became lazy, wanted cheap plot devices or are just less good.

Well, a Reaper invasion would be a lot more effective by 1st: Taking everyone by surprise. 2nd: Attacking from the Glactic political centre. 3nd Getting instantly there. The Reaper invasion of ME3 only has number one. Imagine all the reapers teleporting from the citadel, destroying the central power. How do you manage to make a coherent defense? Everything would have become chaotic. By travelling all the way to the galaxy, they give a lot of chances for the concil to do something about it, or for anyone. They could have managed I guess, but if you have a far better plan of action, why not use it? But I'd be highly surprised the Reapers wouldn't be a fearful force to deal with anyhow.

You'd have to define what too powerful is. I mean, do every story dealing with the sort of stuf have to work in a similar way? Why can't they make something unique in its delivery? Shepard always was the one to make things work and save the day, but I think he's becoming way too important, too much of a superhero rather than one of the best who manages to get things work despite the odds. Someone both good, and lucky. Now it's ALL about Shepard, how he's the right man, how the enemies despise him, etc. It's way too cheesy and cliché I know ME1 was a bit cliché and cheesy, but the plot was actually fairly unique, and what it had which was cliché and chessy was actually good and interesting, unlike the terrible Jack or Grunt characters.

Why wouldn't I want to make sense out of a story? Even if it's a sci-fi one? - or more accurately a space opera one, a lot of sci-fi stories are super coherent and logical, you just haven't read many books I'd guess, many without plot holes. Hey, I could tell myself too to not overthink about a game with poor gameplay mechanics and a terrible story because I wouldn't be able to enjoy it, because it would be my loss. Guess what, some actually have standards, care about playing good games from every aspect. You shouldn't tell people to have lower expectations or standards in order to enjoy a game.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 janvier 2011 - 08:31 .

[Ahriman]

I want Reapers smart as possible. Capture the Citadel and shut down all relays, not dumb sitting on Earth awaiting a Hero.

I want Reapers strong as possible. Attack every hubworld ignoring any resistance.

I want Reapers that cannot be defeated. Still a way always can be found, you know.

That has sense to me.

[BringerOfChaos]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

BringerOfChaos wrote...
Stop trying to make sense out of a fictional game. The story serves its purpose.

Why don't you make a game in the future? Before you do that, think about this: Somewhere on the internet, someone will be complaining about insignificant plot holes you left in the game. 

If the reapers were as bad ass as they made them out to be then they could've destroyed everyone in the first game. That would be much of a game though.

This is a classic case of making the antagonists too powerful in comparison to the protagonists. 
You can't make sense of it. You just hurt yourself/not enjoy the game.

Seriously, anyone care having real arguments? Someone's inability to make a game doesn't impair him of judgement. The only difference between a game developper and a gamer is that the game developper can make games, their tastes/judgement/whatever are no more valid. It's not because you can make games that they're necessarily good, nor that's because you are a gamer that you can't think for yourself and have tastes. We don't care if he may leave plot holes if he ever makes a game, what we care is that Bioware did leave obvious plot holes. I'm not talking solely ME3 trailer here, but ME2 had loads of them. Seriously, as a game designer you have to do your best to leave plot holes out, to make the story as coherent possible, particularly when making a big universe like this and making a trilogy. No plot hole is insignificant, it immidiately lowers the quality of the story. How can you top rate something that has plot holes, no matter how small they are? Some in ME2 were so obvious, it only shows either the writers became lazy, wanted cheap plot devices or are just less good.

Well, a Reaper invasion would be a lot more effective by 1st: Taking everyone by surprise. 2nd: Attacking from the Glactic political centre. 3nd Getting instantly there. The Reaper invasion of ME3 only has number one. Imagine all the reapers teleporting from the citadel, destroying the central power. How do you manage to make a coherent defense? Everything would have become chaotic. By travelling all the way to the galaxy, they give a lot of chances for the concil to do something about it, or for anyone. They could have managed I guess, but if you have a far better plan of action, why not use it? But I'd be highly surprised the Reapers wouldn't be a fearful force to deal with anyhow.

You'd have to define what too powerful is. I mean, do every story dealing with the sort of stuf have to work in a similar way? Why can't they make something unique in its delivery? Shepard always was the one to make things work and save the day, but I think he's becoming way too important, too much of a superhero rather than one of the best who manages to get things work despite the odds. Someone both good, and lucky. Now it's ALL about Shepard, how he's the right man, how the enemies despise him, etc. It's way too cheesy and cliché I know ME1 was a bit cliché and cheesy, but the plot was actually fairly unique, and what it had which was cliché and chessy was actually good and interesting, unlike the terrible Jack or Grunt characters.

Why wouldn't I want to make sense out of a story? Even if it's a sci-fi one? - or more accurately a space opera one, a lot of sci-fi stories are super coherent and logical, you just haven't read many books I'd guess, many without plot holes. Hey, I could tell myself too to not overthink about a game with poor gameplay mechanics and a terrible story because I wouldn't be able to enjoy it, because it would be my loss. Guess what, some actually have standards, care about playing good games from every aspect. You shouldn't tell people to have lower expectations or standards in order to enjoy a game.

tl;dr

Can you give me the short version?

[Evil Johnny 666]

BringerOfChaos wrote...
tl;dr

Can you give me the short version?

This is a forum, not a chatroom.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 06 janvier 2011 - 11:13 .

[BringerOfChaos]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

BringerOfChaos wrote...
tl;dr

Can you give me the short version?

This is a forum, not a chatroom.

****, I guess I'll never know what you wrote. 

[Phaedon]

-flashblade- wrote...

As far as I am concerned Mass Effect 3 is allready a complete disappointment.

Optimism ftw

I groaned when I saw the reveal trailer. So the reapers are coming to Earth in force, eh? For what reason exactly besides it being the homeworld of our species and to make the players emotionally invested? I guess not much at all.

It's the homeworld of one of the spieces, you are assuming that they are not attacking the rest of the homewords as well.

Makes absolutely no sense.

Attacking a homeworld doesn't?

There are way more important planets and the citadel that need to be visited first. Actually I hate how this is looking with a passion.

You saw 7 Reapers reaping London, so that means that the rest of the homeworlds and the Citadel weren't 'visited'. In fact you are also assuming that Earth is the first one to be attacked.

BioWare completely failed to portray a machine race that as far as we know could be at least a  few hundred thousand if not a million years more technologically advanced. The first Gulf War showed what about 30 years of military development can do. They rendered the enemy absolutely helpless. So I am suppossed to believe that the races of the galaxy stand a chance against the reapers? Yeah right.

Well, obviously they a) won't stand a chance, b)something new will come into play. I didn't see the part were the Mantis gunships took down a Reapah.

The idea of Shepard effecting the outcome of the final battle personally is simply beyond ludicrous. I allready thought that the fight against the reaper core and even more so the fight against the reaper larva was borderline. It felt way too much like one of those side-scrolling shooters R-Type for example or Xenon where you shoot the weakpoints of the larger enemy to destroy them. I would really hope we don't see something like this again, but I am willing to bet we will.

Hehe, in fact the average shooter's plot is more down to earth than your average RPG where you save the whole world everytime. So your point is false.

That would have been a realistic ending to the reaper threat, but the idea of sending them packing is ridiculous nonsense par excelance, not with the technological edge that they simply SHOULD possess.

You know the ending of ME3? 

[Fiery Phoenix]

Phaedon wins this thread.

[Phaedon]

Heh, thanks.

[BiancoAngelo7]

agree 100% with OP

also Phaedon made me lol hard.


"ME3 is already a complete dissapointment..."


"Optimism FTW!"


LOL:lol:

Modifié par BiancoAngelo7, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:32 .

[Phaedon]

I only partially agree with the OP. I want ME3 to be a gut wrenching experience, but not to the point that it makes me feel bad and that I don't enjoy the game.

[Phaedon]

Double post

Modifié par Phaedon, 07 janvier 2011 - 06:35 .