289 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

liggy002 wrote...

Right: Game was more linear than the rest, no vehicle and planetary exploration (linear missions), and only 1 town in the game other than the normandy. Also, brushing aside Harbinger from the lead villain position. Mass Effect 3 didn't have the hidden scanning quests like ME2. This might have been done purposely so they can release more DLC to make us pay. That said, it was the weakest entry in the series even if you don't include the ending. It is made even weaker by the terrible ending.

However ME3 has a stronger plot (minus the ending), better characterizations, better script, less filler, better pacing, and far more emotion.

That cut out the fat, except for one or two, the N7 Missions in ME2 sucked as well. The entire series lacked good side missions (calling ME2 loyalty and the four big ME3 non required quests main)..

[Jesusland]

tobito113 wrote...

MattFini wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

oh look, more ****ing

Sorry.  Maybe you want to start your own topic where you can talk about how perfect the game is?

Im sorry im just fascinating at how so many people can stay on the forums of a game they clearly hate so much.

But hey, BSN is WELL known for this on the internet. 

Clueless comment.  If we didn't LOVE the ME franchise, we wouldn't be this dissapointed.  That's why we're here, because we love the ME franchise, and evidently more than you do.

[ahandsomeshark]

txgoldrush wrote...

For the record...all three games were rushed...tell me the first Mass Effect wasn't rushed....
hell ME1 was far more of a rush job than ME3.

In fact, ME3 just did not have the filler the other two did. It had 30 minutes of filler, not 5 hours of it.

what did you consider filler in the other 2?

[txgoldrush]

Jesusland wrote...

I am KROGAN wrote...

It just feels like they gave up in the process of making this game.

It doesn't feel right, if you understand what I'm trying to say.

Yup.  It feels half-assed compared to ME2.  It just doesn't have the "heart" of its predecessors.

Wrong, its got more heart...its just better paced with less filler.

Take of the nostalgia glasses, Bioware games aren't that polished to begin with.

[ahandsomeshark]

txgoldrush wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Right: Game was more linear than the rest, no vehicle and planetary exploration (linear missions), and only 1 town in the game other than the normandy. Also, brushing aside Harbinger from the lead villain position. Mass Effect 3 didn't have the hidden scanning quests like ME2. This might have been done purposely so they can release more DLC to make us pay. That said, it was the weakest entry in the series even if you don't include the ending. It is made even weaker by the terrible ending.

However ME3 has a stronger plot (minus the ending), better characterizations, better script, less filler, better pacing, and far more emotion.

That cut out the fat, except for one or two, the N7 Missions in ME2 sucked as well. The entire series lacked good side missions (calling ME2 loyalty and the four big ME3 non required quests main)..

what??? How did the N7 missions suck? What was wrong with them? And how did it have better characterizations?

[TrueHD]

It's true. The game goes downhill at a sickening rate by the time you get to Cerberus HQ.

The latter part of the game was probably outsourced.

[txgoldrush]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

For the record...all three games were rushed...tell me the first Mass Effect wasn't rushed....
hell ME1 was far more of a rush job than ME3.

In fact, ME3 just did not have the filler the other two did. It had 30 minutes of filler, not 5 hours of it.

what did you consider filler in the other 2?

The planet scanning and the mako driving. Nevermind that you are in a CHASE with Saren in ME1, but you can do these time consuming exploration side missions. ME1 had no sense of urgency, it was exploration fo rthe sake of it.

The N7 Missions in ME2 were skippable as well. Other than maybe a uprgrade to pick up, there is no real incentive to do them.

[ahandsomeshark]

txgoldrush wrote...

Jesusland wrote...

I am KROGAN wrote...

It just feels like they gave up in the process of making this game.

It doesn't feel right, if you understand what I'm trying to say.

Yup.  It feels half-assed compared to ME2.  It just doesn't have the "heart" of its predecessors.

Wrong, its got more heart...its just better paced with less filler.

Take of the nostalgia glasses, Bioware games aren't that polished to begin with.

It's not nostalgia. I've played through ME2 4 times since December. It's got much more depth than ME3.

[ahandsomeshark]

txgoldrush wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

For the record...all three games were rushed...tell me the first Mass Effect wasn't rushed....
hell ME1 was far more of a rush job than ME3.

In fact, ME3 just did not have the filler the other two did. It had 30 minutes of filler, not 5 hours of it.

what did you consider filler in the other 2?

The planet scanning and the mako driving. Nevermind that you are in a CHASE with Saren in ME1, but you can do these time consuming exploration side missions. ME1 had no sense of urgency, it was exploration fo rthe sake of it.

The N7 Missions in ME2 were skippable as well. Other than maybe a uprgrade to pick up, there is no real incentive to do them.

um the incentive is that it's an RPG and you get experience, credits, upgrades and a sense of the galaxy by doing the missions. Do you just not like side missions at all? 

[gmboy902]

While I agree that the meaningless scanning quests were awful and the Rachni kinda got shafted, I don't agree that the rest of the game was awful. You still have these big, impacting moments - Mordin's sacrifice, or the equally impacting option to betray him. You have the Rannoch chapter, which I think was incredibly well done. Kai Leng could have been developed more, but the scene where you kill him is badass to no bounds. The confrontation between you, Anderson, and the Illusive Man on the Citadel was great.

I don't know where people are getting poor dialogue and voice-acting from. Maybe a couple of cheesy lines are tossed in at points, yes, but honestly I find that the voice-actors are just as spectacular as they have always been and the dialogue flows. Better than the Witcher 2's voice-acting, where pretty much anyone who wasn't Geralt, Roche, or Iorveth seemed plucked out of a kids' show at times.

[Can0fCorn]

pick your battles

[txgoldrush]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Right: Game was more linear than the rest, no vehicle and planetary exploration (linear missions), and only 1 town in the game other than the normandy. Also, brushing aside Harbinger from the lead villain position. Mass Effect 3 didn't have the hidden scanning quests like ME2. This might have been done purposely so they can release more DLC to make us pay. That said, it was the weakest entry in the series even if you don't include the ending. It is made even weaker by the terrible ending.

However ME3 has a stronger plot (minus the ending), better characterizations, better script, less filler, better pacing, and far more emotion.

That cut out the fat, except for one or two, the N7 Missions in ME2 sucked as well. The entire series lacked good side missions (calling ME2 loyalty and the four big ME3 non required quests main)..

what??? How did the N7 missions suck? What was wrong with them? And how did it have better characterizations?

Better characterizations because the crew was more organically part of the story instead of "Hey, Shep, wannna do a favor for me so that I can develop". Nevermind that there really isn't much interaction between the crew in ME2 outside Miranda, Jacob, and Mordin. In ME3, they care for and support eachother through tough times, and characters like Cortez and Traynor play major roles as noncombat members.

The N7 missions outside of one were just there, baring no relevance to the plot.

[2484Stryker]

I don't know what changed between me first finishing the game and now, but my opinion of ME3 has certainly dropped even more. At first I was convinced that 95% of the game was pure awesomeness and that only the ending prevented it from getting GOTY. However, as it stands, I feel that ME3 really is another DA2 - perhaps even worse simply due to the fact that it had two great predecessors to live up to.

It feels like Bioware didn't really care about perfecting this game. They just wanted to get it over with and hoped that its combat mechanics & weapon modification options would carry the game. Well, they didn't.

My three biggest gripes are the poor utilization of war assets (as presented in final battle), broken quest tracking system, and last but definitely not least, the filler/fetch quests (truthfully, scanning planets was more exciting).

[txgoldrush]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Jesusland wrote...

I am KROGAN wrote...

It just feels like they gave up in the process of making this game.

It doesn't feel right, if you understand what I'm trying to say.

Yup.  It feels half-assed compared to ME2.  It just doesn't have the "heart" of its predecessors.

Wrong, its got more heart...its just better paced with less filler.

Take of the nostalgia glasses, Bioware games aren't that polished to begin with.

It's not nostalgia. I've played through ME2 4 times since December. It's got much more depth than ME3.

depth for depth's sake is meaningless.

[JohnLena]

Hated only 3 factions of enemies and no end boss.

[stormhit]

The "fetch quests" ARE the planet scanning diversion. They're there to encourage galaxy map exploration. They clearly aren't intended to be thought of as "missions."

And like mineral scanning in ME2, it's totally obvious that it's there just to break up the action of the game a little.

[txgoldrush]

2484Stryker wrote...

I don't know what changed between me first finishing the game and now, but my opinion of ME3 has certainly dropped even more. At first I was convinced that 95% of the game was pure awesomeness and that only the ending prevented it from getting GOTY. However, as it stands, I feel that ME3 really is another DA2 - perhaps even worse simply due to the fact that it had two great predecessors to live up to.

It feels like Bioware didn't really care about perfecting this game. They just wanted to get it over with and hoped that its combat mechanics & weapon modification options would carry the game. Well, they didn't.

My three biggest gripes are the poor utilization of war assets (as presented in final battle), broken quest tracking system, and last but definitely not least, the filler/fetch quests (truthfully, scanning planets was more exciting).

War assets - agreed somewhat, although your choices do appear in the endgame. Wreav leading the Krogan is far more sinister than Wrex leading them is.

Broken quest tracking - not as big of a problem, just 100% every galaxy you can and then turn them all in before Curing The Genophage and Cerebrus HQ.

filler/fetch quests - a problem for most Bioware games in general, ME1 and ME2 had them too, at least they didn't take hours on cut and paste environments.

[txgoldrush]

stormhit13 wrote...

The "fetch quests" ARE the planet scanning diversion. They're there to encourage galaxy map exploration. They clearly aren't intended to be thought of as "missions."

And like mineral scanning in ME2, it's totally obvious that it's there just to break up the action of the game a little.

clean the galaxy out, then turn them all in....no biggie. 30-60 min of filler at most.

[ticklefist]

MattFini wrote...

I agree with you.

Playing it through a second time has made me realize how ... problematic the whole game is.

Terrible journal system, lazy side quests consisting of planet scanning and nothing more, N7 missions that are simply the multiplayer maps slapped into the campaign ... it goes on and on.

Of course, ME3 is still a solid, if unspectacular game, that could be saved overall if they fix that godforsaken ending.

But it doesn't even come close to ME2. And that's a shame.

Agreed on every count. Couldn't have said it better myself. I would like to add that the theme park attractions aren't very impressive either. Except Tuchanka which says a lot about how uninspired everything else was. My whole time playing I felt as if the team just got burned out on the Mass Effect universe. The ending supports this theory.

Modifié par ticklefist, 27 mars 2012 - 02:05 .

[Agremont2]

Filler can be done more or less interesting though, In my opinion the filler in ME2 as well as ME1 is far more interesting than ME3s.

I've always felt filler (sidequests) is an integral part of the roleplaying game experience.

Modifié par Agremont2, 27 mars 2012 - 02:06 .

[Psycho Mantis I]

I wanted to love ME3 like i loved 1/2 but, it didn't happen for a lot of reasons besides the ending.
1. Harbinger was a major villain in ME2 and i thought he would be even major in ME3 but you never see him and all you know is that he is one of the Reapers leading the attack on Earth and that is it.
2. The "major" choices you had in the first two games didn't have almost any difference at all.
Examples: You kill/save the Rachni and in ME3 it is almost the same thing but different dialog choices. There are others like the Collector Base and choosing Anderson as Councilor.

[ticklefist]

Agremont2 wrote...

Filler can be done more or less interesting though, In my opinion the filler in ME2 as well as ME1 is far more interesting than ME3s.

I've always felt filler (sidequests) is an integral part of the roleplaying game experience.

A big part of the appeal imo. Sidequests are the difference between a 30 hour agame and a 50 hour game. 

[Clumsy Astronaut]

txgoldrush wrote...

For the record...all three games were rushed...tell me the first Mass Effect wasn't rushed....
hell ME1 was far more of a rush job than ME3.

In fact, ME3 just did not have the filler the other two did. It had 30 minutes of filler, not 5 hours of it.

It felt like they were equally rushed, it's just that ME3 decided to almost literally cut the ending to beef out the rest.

[txgoldrush]

Agremont2 wrote...

Filler can be done more or less interesting though, In my opinion the filler in ME2 as well as ME1 is far more interesting than ME3s.

I've always felt filler (sidequests) is an integral part of the roleplaying game experience.

Filler is unnecessary....what seperates good RPG writing from the bad is how side missions are intergrated into the plot and themes. In ME1 and ME2, they don't fit into the story well...and ME1 causes huge pacing problems....I guess Saren is courteous to wait for us.

DAO had some bad filler quests as well.

[txgoldrush]

Mr. Sandman wrote...

I wanted to love ME3 like i loved 1/2 but, it didn't happen for a lot of reasons besides the ending.
1. Harbinger was a major villain in ME2 and i thought he would be even major in ME3 but you never see him and all you know is that he is one of the Reapers leading the attack on Earth and that is it.
2. The "major" choices you had in the first two games didn't have almost any difference at all.
Examples: You kill/save the Rachni and in ME3 it is almost the same thing but different dialog choices. There are others like the Collector Base and choosing Anderson as Councilor.

Try saving the new rachni queen after killing the one in ME1.....I dare you.....

Modifié par txgoldrush, 27 mars 2012 - 02:11 .