281 réponses à ce sujet

[Robhuzz]

Cant Planet wrote...

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.

Exactly. ME3 was rushed, like every game that has something to do with EA these days. Was it noticable? Yes it was. Was it gamebreaking or did it make ME3 any less fun to play? No. Well at least not for me.

The ending, for me, is the only real screw up, not the rest of the game.
Yes the journal could've been handled a lot better, keyboard layout for the PC SHOULD have been handled better, the side quests mostly involved overhearing people (rude Shepard) then fetching something from a planet. They weren't particularly interesting but I did them anyway.

All this was neglectable because I felt the overal atmosphere and quality of the game was really amazing. Then the ending hit...

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

[Nataladass]

bump and hoping someone at BW/EA reads this....

[AlexXIV]

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.

So the fact that you pick up quests on the citadel by overhearing people talk instead of engaging direct dialogue like in ME1 and ME2 is due to the fact that it was the ending of the trilogy? Not to mention that you 'solve quests' my scanning planets?

[effortname]

At some point they decided the marginal amount of extra cash they'd make from releasing later to extra acclaim wasn't worth the marginal amount of cash they'd spend developing the game a bit extra.

[GBGriffin]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

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.

But that's just indoctrina..hahahaha, nah, seriously, I need to try this now.

[Silmane]

The beginning Earth sequence is so bad that it's off the charts.

Almost no idea of what happened after Arrival. It's very briefly mentioned. No trial to start out the game with Reapers invading during it. Shepard acts dumb as hell when talking. LIke ahmahgod Reapers?? No way, bro.

The scenery was so incredibly bland. I can't believe they got away with this intro. Ah, yeah, we're dodging people, walkin through this place. Doesn't even have a name. Then we're inside of some courtroom where there's no chairs. A council of people we don't know, so obviously we don't care about them.

Then all of the sudden we're under attack? It's 2012 and we could've figured out something was coming before they did on Earth in this game. There are a few alliance systems that got hit before Earth did. What happened to that quantum entanglement bullcrap and why wasn't Earth told?

So the reapers attack and jesus, Mass effect always has great skyboxes, but i dunno what happened to Vancouver/Seattle. It's a huge mess. Looks really really bad.

Between the sprites running from the buildings(directly towards the reapers lol) and the poor level design. Then they start contradicting lore by having what I believe is a dreadnaught fighting a Reaper. if I remember right, they don't enter atmo.

The ventboy stuff is whatever, but none of the Reapers are shooting at the Normandy. The Destroyer who took out the shuttles, could have wiped out the Normandy.

The Normandy's NEW scanner gets detected by Reapers yet Hackett and thousands of people and aliens can build this enormous super structure and not be detected at all. The writing just gets worse and worse here.

I thought Mars and Palaven were decent. Palaven bugs me because it IS a moon and doesn't seem to feature an atmosphere. No helmet is required on this level. I know for a fact my Shepard wasn't wearing one.

Apparently they need my help, but with all these Turians standing on rooftops and shooting dead husks for infinity, it feels kinda pointless. Also like to point out that while the Brutes and marauders are pushing you back, there is a Blackstar gun at the end of that level. I didn't even get to use it because of how the level is designed. To PUSH YOU BACK.

The scanning and N7 missions barely even get a mention from me. I don't even need to talk about them because they are so bad and sport no creativity whatsoever. Walking around on a crashed ship that I thought was about to fall every 20 seconds in ME2 was a million times more appealing than anything in ME3's side missions.

Tuchanka and Rannoch are clearly the meat of this game with two great planets worth of stuff to do. Characters dying and not dying. Alliances forged or broken. Space walks and a couple inventive levels. Unfortunately, this is where it peaks and falls apart again.

I gotta point out the super pointless turret sections of the game. Palaven, Rannoch and at the end of the game. I don't believe you can even harm the Reaper on Rannoch with it. you serious right now?

They talked with DICE to make their soundscape more impressive and they did. only now it doesnt' sound like mass effect at all. A couple of guns sounds like ME1, but that's it.

I won't even get into the wasted potential of the last few hours of the game. I will say that the multiplayer crippled this game. EA can't keep up with Activision if their studios are pumping out these long RPGs that people play and play without spending money on mappacks and other dlc for multiplayer. So, all is good if you're buying that stuff up.

whatever, ME1 and 2 were fantastic games. It's fitting that I made a alternate suicide mission video collection a year or so back. That's actually how I end my ME storyline now. Forgetting 3 all together.

[granyte]

This is the final image of the C&C 4 ending

[Deschi]

I agree ins ome points with the OP, bit i actually enjoyed the fast pacing beginning and that the Reapers were suddenly there. It had a nightmarish touch which was really fitting. And why a long exposition? Everythign was said in ME2. ME3 is supposed to be a "war" story, so for me the beginning just works great.,

[MoonsKisu]

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.

[Mixxer5]

I do agree with OP mostly- I still think that indoctrination theory is true (or ar least Bio is plannimg something GREAT). But even greatest ending won't change fact that what was most important in previous MEs- journey- is flawed. Unless they're making expansion pack...

[Aetius5]

I think EA would rather have BioWare push the game out the gate as quickly as possible and then finish it via dlcs. I agree with the OP in most of his points. BioWare naturally cannot contradict their publisher or talk bad about them, so that's why there's all of these excuses and PR spin going about. Before EA, BioWare didn't need "community managers" (PR), their products were quality and lived up to what BW said they would be.

[Mad-Max90]

If I had a time machine I'd go back in time and warn Microsoft to buy them out before EA...you might not like Microsoft for whatever reason but look at the quality of the story and rpg elements of mass effect 1 comared to 2&3

[alx119]

Sadly I'm inclined to agree with all the points, I don't want to be too harsh, but a reviewer said that Mass Effect 3 didn't feel like was given the love and attention the last two got. And I agree.
I can only hope that with expansion packs, patches and DLC we can have, not just a good game as it is, but an almost perfect one.
I don't see it happening, since I have yet to see a DLC that actual fixes problems within the game non-DLC-related, but hey I can hope a bit.

Complaining is starting to feel a little pointless.

[Worhaim_]

Most of the people here would be praising the game now if the endings were actually good. Because, the rest of the game it's actually awesome.

[ArmyKnifeX]

Worhaim_ wrote...

Most of the people here would be praising the game now if the endings were actually good. Because, the rest of the game it's actually awesome.

I felt this way going through it. But when the ending was such a letdown, it's a LOT harder to overlook the issues I had with the game. To the point where I can't forgive what gripes I have with the rest of the game. If they were going to let us down so much with the ending, they could've tightened up the rest of it.

[Myskal1981]

I'm amazed what goes as evidence these days. Nearly everything the OP states is an interpretation of events. Only "evidence" is postponing the initial release date, the day one DLC I can accept as evidence as well (although it can also be applied to wierd sales strategy) and if you want the ending (cause I don't like the ending either).

Now the rest. Come on, ME3 cannot have the same slow start as ME1, the story is established, everyone knows what will happen.

There is a galactic war going on and we are supposed to explore market hubs? What, how logical would that be?

Side quests: per definition every quest not necessary to progress the main story is a side quest. So you have ardat yakshi, rachni, Jacob, Tuchanka Bomb, missing Admiral on Rannoch, Grissom Academy, Hanar Traitor (the one with Kasumi), N7 Missions. Even Aria's mercenary Quest counts in my book. More side missions and some players will say: lost immersion, does not look like we are in a galactic war, Shep has time to do a lot of other things...

Using EDI as proof is really funny. You may not like her, but EDI surely does not look like a character that was build in out of desperation. She has tons of dialogue, is vital to understand the conflict of organics vs. synthetics. You can discuss that you wanted more squaddies, but BW told us very early that there would only be a few.

BW may have been rushed and most probably was, but many of the points you mention are good the way they are looking at  immersion or gameplay/story mechanics.

[SaladinDheonqar]

Well put OP. I fully agree with you. I guess it's going to take some a little longer to see the flaws in the rest of ME3.

[GargamelLeNoir]

Very good points OP, I really felt how hollow the sidequests felt in ME3 :/ The best part of ME3 was the discussions between the squadmates and the gameplay. Well voicing actors can be done simultaneously with the rest of the development.

[MrFob]

To be honest, that does not make sense to me. I have a main point but let's start somwehere else here:
Most of the things you mention like the planets only showing up for a short time, the lack of side mission (btw, there is also the awesome Grissom Academy missions) he armour and weapons thing, the squad etc fit in perfectly with the plot. They wanted to tell a war story, you just fled earth and now, while you are searching for allies, people are dying by the millions. There simply is no time to stick around and take your MAKO (if you had it) for spin. I think the game very well conveyed the feeling of urgency, something many fans actually asked for on these boards after ME1 and 2. The Normandy and Sheps stuff were confiscated by the alliance. They are in the middle of overhauling the ship when the reapers attack. of course you don't have all your stuff back (besides, I thin k they outdid themselves on the variety of weapons, I was impressed by that).
I'll give it to you that the ending as well as the beginning seem rushed. I had the same impression there but the rest of the game, I didn't have that impression once.
Besides (and this is my main point), ME1 was released in December 2007, ME2 in January 2010, that is 25 months and you specifically say that ME2 was not rushed and had lot's of details to it. ME3 was released in March 2012. that is 26 months after ME2. The production cycle was even longer while the play time is even slightly shorter (IMO). Now you could say that there might be more content due to further branching but as you yourself point out, there is not that much of it after all. Compared to ME2, it can't really have been rushed. I maintain that the parts I don't like (the ending and the beginning) are done like they are because the creators have a very different taste than I do (which would be weird, given that I immensely enjoyed the rest of the game) or there was some for of scheduling incompetence going on, specifically related to these parts of the game. FOr everything else, I think they had valid reasons to do what they did.

[TookYoCookies]

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.

 


WHHAATT????!!!! are you serious?? Why after two previous VERY SUCCESSFUL entries in a series would you want the 3rd to be different, streamlined/on rails?!?!

if you were going to justify the game being linear/streamlined then it shouldve all taken place on earth, with you not leaving, and spending the majority of the game doing what the advertising suggests: "Taking back earth", and actually fighting the antagonists you spent the previous 2 games preparing for.

[count_4]

Don't get me wrong, I hate rushed games and I hate the ME3 ending (the rest didn't bother me that much as the experience as a whole was still awesome) but people do need to realize that simply adding another 6 months of development to polish a game costs tens of millions of dollars with a project like this.
And while I certainly don't like what EA does to their dev studios at times, we have to keep in mind that they pay these developers for two, three years without getting anything back. They have to trust them with all their money that the final product will be worth it and that they'll walk away with a profit.

[Nightdragon8]

I think the problem is that, we as gamers what "Good games" while EA wants "Games that make money" I guess we know what won out there...

The sad part is that EA got the company because it makes "good games" and with more money they can make "Better good games" But then runs in the bean counter and "CEO" if we spend 1 more million dollors on this you/we wont get 1 more point in stock because of "Profits" oooo we can't go hurting the profit margin now can we?


Edit: Heh looks like the Cynic, sarcasium flags got turned on some where in the middle there....

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 27 mars 2012 - 09:41 .

[ZLurps]

Mass Effect 1 was released in November 2007
Mass Effect 2 was released in January 2010
Time between release of ME1 and ME2: Approx. 25 months.

Mass Effect 3 was released in March 2012
Time between release of ME2 and ME3: Approx 26 months.

Where's the rush?

We have less side missions, less squad mates (both which imo are good for pacing of game) and BioWare could recycle character models and other resources from ME2.

Again, where's the rush?