680 réponses à ce sujet

[Chewin]

I like them and hate them both for different reasons.

[Someone With Mass]

bleetman wrote...

ME3 automatically surpasses GoW3 to me, on the basis that I can actually play it.

I'm not sure I understand the comparison, mind you. Beyond the two games franchise having a) manly men marines (possibly, anyway. My ME games never have) and chest high walls, they're not that similar.

Then again, GOW3 is doing a better job at having good looking woman marines/soldiers that aren't there just for sex appeal than ME3.

[bleetman]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Then again, GOW3 is doing a better job at having good looking woman marines/soldiers that aren't there just for sex appeal than ME3.

Sad but true. I fear for my Femshep.

[CroGamer002]

bleetman wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Then again, GOW3 is doing a better job at having good looking woman marines/soldiers that aren't there just for sex appeal than ME3.

Sad but true. I fear for my Femshep.

Hmh, only 2 female squadmates had that problem in Mass Effect 2 and so far only Ashley has it.

Also, even Jacob and Thane have that problem, though nobody really complained since it wasn't as obvious like those 2.


Plus, Ashley is not nearly as bad as Miranda so at least there's some improvement.



So, I don't see why would you worry about FemShep then.

[CroGamer002]

Sasie wrote...


They also should drop the 'RPG' part by that point and lose/gain fans accordingly. Some people still follow Mass effect because it was originally an RPG, not because they wanted another shooter. Personally I liked the ME1 combat more then ME2 and certaintly don't think making an RPG into a Shooter is an improvment.

ME1 was never an RPG nor it was originally intended to be one.

It is just bad hybrid of RPG and shooter.


Shooter elements in that game can be hardly called shooter elements, while RPG elements( not counting role playing, even though imo that's sole meaning of RPG) are a joke and only give illusion of choice.

[Someone With Mass]

liesandpropaganda wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

So, I don't see why would you worry about FemShep then.

Because of idiot beauty contests perhaps?

That last one was a pretty good waste of time, yes.

I mean, deciding hair color? Really? That thing I can do in less than ten seconds with the character creator?

[CroGamer002]

liesandpropaganda wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

So, I don't see why would you worry about FemShep then.

Because of idiot beauty contests perhaps?

Bioware just wanted to please their fans with that by giving them choice in that.


They failed ofcourse.

[alex90c]

Someone With Mass wrote...

There's another thing ME3 will more than likely do better than GOW3. Better and more diverse weapons.

ME3 has an explosive crossbow? 

Not sure how you'd define "better" though, I thought the weapons in GOW and ME were perfectly fine.

In regards to the OP, all ME3 needs to surpass GoW3 are larger areas to for missions to take place in (rather than the narrow railroad where you can hardly manoeuvre at all), an actual AI (I've been outflanked by it many a time in GoW3) and to make its weapons far more heavy hitting. Using a sawed-off in Gears actually feels heavy and lethal whereas in the ME games the weapons just don't have that same level of power behind them.

[ERJAK1]

Dasher1010 wrote...

Mass Effect game out shorly after Gears of War did and both were develoepd using the same engine at roughly the same time. Both ushered in the era of the cover shooter. The consensus is that Mass Effect had a better story while Gears of War played better. Although Mass Effect was still a much more casual friedly game sicne it didn't have the same learning curve that Gears had.

Fast forward a few years. Gears of War 2 fixes it's story mode by giving Cole and Hoffman some actual screen time while Mass Effect's cover and ammo systems were reworked to no longer be as clunky as they once were.

Still, Gears 2's multiplayer was buggy and weapon damage was nerfed, making it hard to kill anyone without explosives while Mass Effect 2 really nerfed party members by reducing their customization, number of powers and weapon damage. So while both were still considered to be good games, both of the above were severely let down a large part of their fanbase.

Fast forward to today, Mass Effect 3 is going to give players a roll ability which dramatically improves the combat while Gears of War 3 fixed all that was wrong with 2 and added so much more to the game, including a real team deathmatch mode. Both are the end of some of the most popular series of this gnereration and both have very vocal fans on thier forums. But what'll it take to get ME3 up to the high standsard of GoW3 to be the best cover shooter ever.

Then the new gen of hardware hits, DX12 becoems standard and a new trend replaces cover shooters as they go the way of turn based isometric RPGs like Fallout 2 annd Front Mission and tank control survival horror games while we wonder why we ever liked this stuff back in the day.

To answer the title question, not much, Gears is an awesome polished cover shooter, but without the power system of ME, it gets stale rather quickly.


Gears Multiplayer on the otherhand is WAY better than anything ME is going to be able to compete with, not that the MP will be bad but still.

[Someone With Mass]

By better, I mean more balanced. Unlike Gears' shotguns. They were OP as hell.

And explosive crossbows? Eh. ME3 has something better.

[alex90c]

Someone With Mass wrote...

By better, I mean more balanced. Unlike Gears' shotguns. They were OP as hell.

And explosive crossbows? Eh. ME3 has something better.

Seriously, if you let someone get that close to you with a shotgun then you really deserve to die, especially at sawed-off distance (as in, none at all). 

It's why (since I suck with them), rather than taking the gambit and rushing in and getting killed with my gnasher I just stick with my lancer and pump the other guy full of bullets with that instead.

[Drone223]

Gears is a TPS, it never was a action RPG from day one so, apart form combat there is no need to compare it to ME, a better game to compare ME with is DE:HR, or Alpha protocol, since they are both RPG's, people are starting to compare game's properly 

Modifié par Drone223, 01 décembre 2011 - 08:38 .

[SNascimento]

alex90c wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

There's another thing ME3 will more than likely do better than GOW3. Better and more diverse weapons.

ME3 has an explosive crossbow? 

Not sure how you'd define "better" though, I thought the weapons in GOW and ME were perfectly fine.

In regards to the OP, all ME3 needs to surpass GoW3 are larger areas to for missions to take place in (rather than the narrow railroad where you can hardly manoeuvre at all), an actual AI (I've been outflanked by it many a time in GoW3) and to make its weapons far more heavy hitting. Using a sawed-off in Gears actually feels heavy and lethal whereas in the ME games the weapons just don't have that same level of power behind them.

.
Gears 3 levels were bigger than ME2's, but ME2's level were not that small... that are parts more narrow and parts more open, just like any Gears game.
.
And I disagree about the weapons, since ME2, the weapons in Mass Effect feel great, especially when you have ammo powers.

[Had-to-say]

OP define surpass are we talking about critical acclaim or sales? I define success of a game by my own personal opinion and sales. Mass Effect is already more critically acclaimed.

[Gespenst]

It'll have to be released.

[alex90c]

SNascimento wrote...

alex90c wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

There's another thing ME3 will more than likely do better than GOW3. Better and more diverse weapons.

ME3 has an explosive crossbow? 

Not sure how you'd define "better" though, I thought the weapons in GOW and ME were perfectly fine.

In regards to the OP, all ME3 needs to surpass GoW3 are larger areas to for missions to take place in (rather than the narrow railroad where you can hardly manoeuvre at all), an actual AI (I've been outflanked by it many a time in GoW3) and to make its weapons far more heavy hitting. Using a sawed-off in Gears actually feels heavy and lethal whereas in the ME games the weapons just don't have that same level of power behind them.

.
Gears 3 levels were bigger than ME2's, but ME2's level were not that small... that are parts more narrow and parts more open, just like any Gears game.
.
And I disagree about the weapons, since ME2, the weapons in Mass Effect feel great, especially when you have ammo powers.

The ME2 levels may have felt more narrow because the manoeuvring for Shepard sucked. With Gears you can slip in between covers and roll around, giving you that nice level of mobility, but to be honest unless you're a vanguard, by the time you've moved that much in ME2 (as in, beyond the initial point you take cover in once combat begins) most enemies will be dead. A good example of combat would be in Gears 1 near the beginning where you and Delta squad have to advance forward in this garden looking area, an emergence hole opens up and while the team will fire on the locust from where you entered, you can flank them from the left and attack the locust from the side, and lob a grenade down the hole. That is the kind of mobility I'm hoping for in ME3 (or there's the Fenix estate where you can go pretty much anywhere in the entire house while defending it against locust drones, grenadiers and boomers) and which was lacking in ME2.

And seriously, if you've played Gears, everything in it feels heavy, deadly and powerful but the ME games really lack that. I think if they want to achieve a similar effect they need to make weapons generally more destructive and affect the environment much more. Bullets can tear slight cracks in the cover enemies are hiding behind, grenades and explosions in general can blast slight holes in walls and leave debris and stuff like that. I'm not asking for some massive load of gore, but the ME games so far have just felt far too "clean" rather than Bioware really trying to represent the effects of war on environments.

And lets make a comparison as well:

Compare the boomshot to the missile launcher in ME2. Honestly, the latter is just pitiful.

[robarcool]

jreezy wrote...

Adugan wrote...

I hate how GOW is a console-only game. Why do they do that? There is a giant PC fanbase that could give them more money, but those idiot marketing teams love their exclusive content.

The Xbox brand would be dead without Gears of War. I'm glad it's exclusive.

Not it won't. Xbox would be dead without Halo. Halo is still a far greater franchise in my opinion than GOW ever was.

[robarcool]

On topic, well if ME3 can bring back the level of scale and the seriousness towards reapers that ME1 had (well, the reapers are there in ME3, so no more suspense. But Bioware should make it feel like they are most dangerous enemy we have ever seen in any game) and not have an uninspired solution like Gears 3 had for locusts, I will say ME3 will easily surpass GOW3.

[alex90c]

robarcool wrote...

On topic, well if ME3 can bring back the level of scale and the seriousness towards reapers that ME1 had (well, the reapers are there in ME3, so no more suspense. But Bioware should make it feel like they are most dangerous enemy we have ever seen in any game) and not have an uninspired solution like Gears 3 had for locusts, I will say ME3 will easily surpass GOW3.

ME3 will probably surpass GOW3's story and characters (though I liked both tbh, definitely helps that they've had a really strong cast for all three games, even people like Claudia Black and Fred Tatasciore), it's the gameplay where the question mark is; gameplay has never been Bioware's forte, so if ME3 can stand up to a heavyweight like Gears 3 then that'll be pretty damn impressive.

[RPGamer13]

So, Mass Effect 1 comes out a year later than Gears of War and because ME had RPG elements and was claiming it was an RPG, which the first game felt like.  Turns out with ME2, I was wrong. and left me disappointed in that aspect.

I scoffed at Gears of War because it was a shooter and to me shooters are mindless.

Then I played the Gears of War 3 Beta and found it fun.  So, I decided to buy the Gears of War Triple Pack to get the story so I'd be in the loop.

You know what I found?  That I love Gears of War's story and feel compelled to buy the comic books, which came before ME's comics, and maybe the books.  From what I hear, the books and comics add a lot to the story and explain some things.

Then comes the female characters: They put FemShep and Ashley to shame.  Ashley and FemShep's arms are like twigs and Samantha and Bernie and Anya have arms twice the size of Bioware's two characters, what the hell Bioware?

Also, I like the fact that technically the Gears are space marines, but they don't look like space marines.

alex90c wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

There's another thing ME3 will more than likely do better than GOW3. Better and more diverse weapons.

ME3 has an explosive crossbow? 

Not sure how you'd define "better" though, I thought the weapons in GOW and ME were perfectly fine.

In regards to the OP, all ME3 needs to surpass GoW3 are larger areas to for missions to take place in (rather than the narrow railroad where you can hardly manoeuvre at all), an actual AI (I've been outflanked by it many a time in GoW3) and to make its weapons far more heavy hitting. Using a sawed-off in Gears actually feels heavy and lethal whereas in the ME games the weapons just don't have that same level of power behind them.

I know right?  Where's the blade or chainsaw at the end of a rifle?

I love the Torque Bow in Gears of War, getting headshots with that thing is awesome.  Apparently I am better at it than with the Longshot.

Like you said, the shotguns in mass effect don't feel like shotguns, they feel like slower firing rifles.

Adugan wrote...

I hate how GOW is a console-only game. Why do they do that? There is a giant PC fanbase that could give them more money, but those idiot marketing teams love their exclusive content.

They tried it with the first Gears of War.  Apparently it didn't get the sales they were expecting.

And they even added new campaign segments with the PC version.  Though I hadn't heard of it until it was listed that there'd be a Gears 3 unlock for having just one achievement from Gears of War PC.  That could be another factor, lack of advertisement.

Oh and then apparently it got abyssmal reviews, that's probably the biggest cause for the PC version's low numbers.

Dasher1010 wrote...

Myrrah: I'm Chakwas.

Actually, Carolyn Seymour was Myrrah before she was Dr Chakwas.  Get your facts straight.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Drone223 wrote...

Gears is a TPS, it never was a action RPG from day one so, apart form combat there is no need to compare it to ME, a better game to compare ME with is DE:HR, or Alpha protocol, since they are both RPG's, people are starting to compare game's properly 

For better or worse, Mass Effect is closer to Gears that it is to those rpg's.