281 réponses à ce sujet

[Terminus Echoes]

5083100 wrote...

Space Hamster:

THE SPACE HAMSTER DOES THE EXACT SAME THING AS IN ME2. NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER. RAAAGE.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

...signature... is... amazing... ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

[eshilia]

Personally I had no problem with the beginning. Actually I don't even understand why do you say the ME2's opening was so much more detailed. What did you miss here? The long cinematics? The Shepard-praises by other characters? I really enjoyed it this way, and actually, it makes you feel there is no time. Which is actually very true.

For mentioning the lack of squad: it all made sense in the ME2 since in the very end they all raided a Collector base with you. I think I don't need twenty people to choose those two I have to grab with me, do I?

If you killed the Rachni Queen in ME1, she returns as a raging monster in ME3 (in fact, she's patched together from pieces by the Reapers), so I wouldn't say it didn't matter. Okay, either way you can _meet_ something you can call a Rachni queen, but really, at EMS it does matter.

On the other hand I believe you feel disappointed and I can see the reasons in your other statements, but meh, most of them are stated as facts. The question about the beginning of the story and the size of your squad is really a matter of personal taste and I think ours didn't exactly match there . But I have to agree regarding the quests and the Citadel, unfortunately .

[FemmeShep]

I mean it makes sense guys. Just look at EA and their history. Almost every company to be bought from EA has shifted their style.

It's like any company that is bought out. Their new owners/boss's have a big influence on the company. So at least to me, it seems obvious that BioWare is shifting their development style to fit their deadlines/limitations and new owners. 

Modifié par FemmeShep, 27 mars 2012 - 08:08 .

[GBGriffin]

FemmeShep wrote...

I mean it makes sense guys. Just look at EA and their history. Almost every company to be bought from EA has shifted their style.

It's like any company that is bought out. Their new owners/boss's have a big influence on the company. So at least to me, it seems obvious that BioWare is shifting their development style to fit their deadlines/limitations.

I agree, but honestly, it also makes sense to people that BioWare is planning the "greatest troll ever" with some sort of planned ending conspiracy...thing.

I think more and more people (well, I would hope) are starting to stray away from the...theory...and realize it was just rushed, but some people still cling to their belief that BiOWare wouldn't do "this".

[Tony208]

I thought the same thing OP.

[WeAreLegionWTF]

Evidence that ME3 was Incredibly Rushed ------ the ending.

[FemmeShep]

GBGriffin wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

I mean it makes sense guys. Just look at EA and their history. Almost every company to be bought from EA has shifted their style.

It's like any company that is bought out. Their new owners/boss's have a big influence on the company. So at least to me, it seems obvious that BioWare is shifting their development style to fit their deadlines/limitations.

I agree, but honestly, it also makes sense to people that BioWare is planning the "greatest troll ever" with some sort of planned ending conspiracy...thing.

I think more and more people (well, I would hope) are starting to stray away from the...theory...and realize it was just rushed, but some people still cling to their belief that BiOWare wouldn't do "this".

Even the ending aside though, the game feels lacking in a lot of areas. It's heavily focused on the main plot. Which is fine, Mass Effect has always been driven by this main story. But ME3 by far has the most chipped away world/depth of side missions and other stories to flesh it out. It's mostly just the main plot. 

So even if they are trolling with the ending, or there is a twist, it still doesn't really change the fact that ME3 is very stripped down/streamlined/ and feels on the rails. 

Modifié par FemmeShep, 27 mars 2012 - 08:15 .

[Pallowin]

Great post!

[Cant Planet]

Thornne wrote...

What I find interesting is that all these things were pretty obvious during my playthrough. The broken quest journal was really annoying.

BUT, I did not care. I was really enjoying the game, for all it's flaws. I could excuse (or at least mostly ignore) the problems because it was ME3, and I was finally going to get a showdown with the Reapers and put the whole series to bed.

Then I hit the ending.

[Terminus Echoes]

eshilia wrote...

Personally I had no problem with the beginning. Actually I don't even understand why do you say the ME2's opening was so much more detailed. What did you miss here? The long cinematics? The Shepard-praises by other characters? I really enjoyed it this way, and actually, it makes you feel there is no time. Which is actually very true.

For mentioning the lack of squad: it all made sense in the ME2 since in the very end they all raided a Collector base with you. I think I don't need twenty people to choose those two I have to grab with me, do I?

If you killed the Rachni Queen in ME1, she returns as a raging monster in ME3 (in fact, she's patched together from pieces by the Reapers), so I wouldn't say it didn't matter. Okay, either way you can _meet_ something you can call a Rachni queen, but really, at EMS it does matter.

On the other hand I believe you feel disappointed and I can see the reasons in your other statements, but meh, most of them are stated as facts. The question about the beginning of the story and the size of your squad is really a matter of personal taste and I think ours didn't exactly match there . But I have to agree regarding the quests and the Citadel, unfortunately .

The beginning of ME3 was one of the most rushed aspects I can see. It's basically: "Okay, we're dropped here in this room, and then this playboy comes and gets me, we're walking through a hallway, oh hey it's Anderson, and then hey it's these Board people, and OH SH** REAPERS, and then Normandy."

And yes, the focus of the game in ME2 was to have a squad. However, there should be a balance in ME3. Instead, we can just barely slide along at ME1 standards.

For such a debatable issue as the Rachni Queen live or die one, it should have had a more profound effect, not just "do all this stuff and find a mecha-rachni in a tunnel." They should have just cut that out entirely, but as I said, it was so they could fit Ravagers in multiplayer.

But most of this that I posted isn't me griping about things. Really, all I care about for my squad is Garrus and Tali. The beginning was a bit of a gripe, but a well founded one. I only made this post to point out why the ending came out as it is, and that Mass Effect 3 shot for the moon but landed in Alaska.

[Avatar231278]

Especially the last point has some value. I won't comment on the others. I agree at some points, and disagree on others.

But the profit argument is a real one.

If you present a game that has a low replayability but an established fanbase, you can put it on the market, people buy it, find out that in the end it doesn't matter how they play the game, as the ending sucks no matter what choices you made, and now you have time between complaining, to buy and play another game. As it procudes no(t as much) running profit like WOW, TOR, LOTRO and MMOG there is little interest in keeping players from playing other games, when you have a company that produces 100s of games each year. Otherwise the market would be stuffed as players keep to one game for a rather large amount of their free-time.

Modifié par Avatar231278, 27 mars 2012 - 08:21 .

[wtbusername]

So now the entire game was purposefully rushed?

It's impossible for a developer to want to NOT make a sequel the exact same thing as the previous game.

Jesus, I'm pretty fcking close to being done with BSN. Worst fanbase ever.

Modifié par wtbusername, 27 mars 2012 - 08:22 .

[shengar]

RPG with standard CoD time release wouldn't do good to anybody. ME3 clearly one hell of rushed job. Gibbed even found many cut out content in the game. Possible that the team doesn't have enough time to put them in order so they decided to cut them all out.

How long should ME3 development take? four years. Four years is the minimal for ME3 to develop at best.

[clipped_wolf]

The lack of enjoyable exploration was sad, not damnable, but it cold have been forgivable. The galaxy feels smaller in ME3, nearly claustrophobic. I forgave the auto-dialogue throughout the game because I believed all the creative energy had been saved up for the maze of branching endings at the end...I was so wrong.

[R3MUS]

You forgot the final showdown with Harbinger!

[kidbd15]

 Lots of speculation... For everyone... 

[GBGriffin]

FemmeShep wrote...

Even the ending aside though, the game feels lacking in a lot of areas. It's heavily focused on the main plot. Which is fine, Mass Effect has always been driven by this main story. But ME3 by far has the most chipped away world/depth of side missions and other stories to flesh it out. It's mostly just the main plot. 

So even if they are trolling with the ending, or there is a twist, it still doesn't really change the fact that ME3 is very stripped down/streamlined/ and feels on the rails. 

That's actually a really good assessment and it nails something I've told people about the game as a whole.

I've always felt, before ME3, that ME1 had the better plot and structure, but 2 had the better gameplay and character development. It's like they tried to go back to the structure of 1 with the gameplay of 2 (which I liked)...but, yeah, they fell short ina  few areas. I got so ick of "run down a corridor, hold and defend, run to the next area, hold and defend"...

You're right; it is chipped away and shallow in many areas Still some great story moments, but I see where you're coming from.

[Silasqtx]

My thoughts exactly OP (mostly) but I still think that the IT, even if not planned, is their best shot to add cut-out content, redo the endings, get most of the fans and EA off their back and probably give them time to polish their product.

[Noelemahc]

Here's another good one. While this may have something to do with the Lack of Squadmates issue, it is really apparent when you think of it this way. There's only two romance options for MShep only: Ashley and Cortez. There's only two for Femshep only, Traynor and Garrus. However, Garrus can only be continued from ME2, as with three others. Also, if Kaiden died at Virmire, there is no heterosexual romance for Femshep. And just take Allers off of the roster, because no one likes her anyways. Kelly Chambers might not have survived the Collector Base, so your options are really narrow. It's absolutely ridiculous.

You forgot Tali. Also, haven't checked yet, but didn't they promise Vega to be romanceable?
But yeah, the treatment of ME2 LIs that are not ME1 characters is abysmally evil.

The majority of armor here is from ME2. Well, all of the full-body armor, anyways. As stated above, you must buy them, but why would a Citadel shop have a Cerberus armor suit? Or a Collector one? The Blood Dragon? None of it makes sense. The N7 armor has more variety, but most of the helmets for it are returning from ME2, as well. Thankfully, the same is not true with the guns.

The shops with the ME2 armour has a simple justification. IT'S YOUR ARMOUR YOU'RE BUYING BACK FROM WHOEVER IT WAS SOLD TO.

Also, the N7 missions are just MP maps (which were obviously designed for MP before being put into the SP) with objectives.

You obviously haven't played Pinnacle Station. That was a whole DLC's worth of obviously MP maps in a game without MP. I'm still iffed that NONE of those maps made it to ME3's MP despite being well-suited for them. Well, except the Therum-inspired one, it was a tad small. The Virmire and Feros ones, however, would've worked magically in ME3.

Bottom line? Yeah, it was rushed, but compared to ME1 and ME2, the bits where unfinished stuff is missing aren't as numerous, even if they are far more easy to spot. F.e. if you weren't forewarned or very actively looking for it, you might not have noticed that same-sex romance was planned for and MADE for both previous games, then cut at the second-to-last moment.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 27 mars 2012 - 08:30 .

[huntsman2310]

To be honest, the reason that ME3 is more streamlined, is simply because of the plot.

You are in a war.

You will only be going to places that are vitally important to the cause. ME1 was about a hunt for Saren, so that meant you would run all about the place gathering clues as to what he was planning.

And also since it was the first game in a new franchise, it needed to have all those neat little sidequests that show off the galaxy and the races in it.

In actual fact, the area's of the Citadel you could go to in ME1 were smaller then in ME3. Most of the stuff in the Presidium, barring the embassy's, Citadel tower, and Shaira's chambers, was for show.

ME3's areas actually had a purpose to them.

The commons, docks and Purgatory were there to show you just how the war was affecting everyone.

ME3's Citadel was designed to show you the full effect of the war on everyone, and to also provide a lot more variety then just the Presidium, C-Sec and the Wards.

Sorry but I have to say this, ME3 is a streamlined hybrid of ME1 and ME2, like the last game in a trilogy should be.

[nitefyre410]

The most damning piece of evidence... the ending.

Its just the bad .. if you notice the game kind reached its peak at Rannoch then after that is just starts to fall off... Thesesia was just a one mission, then Horizon which felt like it wanted to pick back up but kinda fell flat. Then Chronos Station which is were it really should have picked up again but again fell flat. The Battle of London was just the nail in the coffin, Copy paste Rannoch add enemy waves... done..

SMH.

[GBGriffin]

huntsman2310 wrote...

To be honest, the reason that ME3 is more streamlined, is simply because of the plot.

You are in a war.

You will only be going to places that are vitally important to the cause. ME1 was about a hunt for Saren, so that meant you would run all about the place gathering clues as to what he was planning.

And also since it was the first game in a new franchise, it needed to have all those neat little sidequests that show off the galaxy and the races in it.

In actual fact, the area's of the Citadel you could go to in ME1 were smaller then in ME3. Most of the stuff in the Presidium, barring the embassy's, Citadel tower, and Shaira's chambers, was for show.

ME3's areas actually had a purpose to them.

The commons, docks and Purgatory were there to show you just how the war was affecting everyone.

ME3's Citadel was designed to show you the full effect of the war on everyone, and to also provide a lot more variety then just the Presidium, C-Sec and the Wards.

Sorry but I have to say this, ME3 is a streamlined hybrid of ME1 and ME2, like the last game in a trilogy should be.

Even if the plot is streamlined...did the level design need to be as well?

[MadRabbit999]

There are HUGE proofs that the last mission level design, was incredibly rushed too... I still need to get a video to show it all, but the way things got built in the last scene, are quite nasty.

The biggest issue of all, (And this is really easy to spot by QA, so that fact that is still there means they had no time to find it, or fix it): When you get up with the catalyst kid, instead of walking up to the 3 choices, walk back until you reach the invisible wall, and move the camera about, you will notice a giant section of the world geometry missing, resulting in the "mirror of death" effect.

[jarms48]

Support Bump