281 réponses à ce sujet

[donmike84]

mass effect 3 was not rubbish or crap in some terms only the ending was crap and rubbish

[Mixxer5]

I've question to everyone here: Do You find ME3 satisfying (not asking about ending)?
I'm asking because most of people here write: ME3 without ending is perfect. And for me it's worst part of trilogy, scraped of most story, few side missions, talking with characters reduced to minimum etc, etc...

[omntt]

Yes, the game was rushed. There are many little things shifted towards casual gamers and a general lack of polish compared to other mass effect games. Nonetheless, i enjoyed it. Until the ending, that's it. Now i'm stuck, i can't decide if the ending is as it is because it was rushed in a hurry, or it's just bad writing.

[LilyasAvalon]

You bring up EXCELLENT points and I agree with you on every one of them. Your theory is FURTHER supported by the leaked scripts and even the released games audio files.

There are SEVERAL audio files in the game that are unused in the game, why?

And while I do point out that some of those things were mildly acceptable, i.e. Space Hamster/Love Interests, the endings, the game length and COMPLETE lack of side missions are UNACCEPTABLE in my opinion.

I feel really ripped off now, I can't believe I wasted over $108 + $50 for the collector's guide for this.

Bioware should've put MORE effort into making this the finale to remember, instead of the 'best starting point for new players'.

Modifié par LilyasAvalon, 27 mars 2012 - 03:11 .

[AntonioA9011]

Mixxer5 wrote...

I've question to everyone here: Do You find ME3 satisfying (not asking about ending)?
I'm asking because most of people here write: ME3 without ending is perfect. And for me it's worst part of trilogy, scraped of most story, few side missions, talking with characters reduced to minimum etc, etc...

I do agree that Mass Effect 3 was the weakest in the trilogy, looking past the ****ed up ending. If they had made it longer, with more character interactions, set pieces, side missions, hub worlds, and choices of your squad members, then it would have been the best of the trilogy. As it is, I see the framework of something awesome in there, but so much potential was wasted on creature comforts such as Kinect and multiplayer. Dear God, it's almost a crime that BioWare and EA thought that a stepping-stone.....groundwork, rather, was acceptable to be unleashed on the masses. The game just feels so unfinished.

Modifié par AntonioA9011, 27 mars 2012 - 03:13 .

[ardias89]

Yeah it feels a little rushed i agree and that was kinda stupid since every fan could easily have waited another year... but still loved 100 percen..... 99 percent of the game STARCHI"cough"

[ahandsomeshark]

Mixxer5 wrote...

I've question to everyone here: Do You find ME3 satisfying (not asking about ending)?
I'm asking because most of people here write: ME3 without ending is perfect. And for me it's worst part of trilogy, scraped of most story, few side missions, talking with characters reduced to minimum etc, etc...

No I don't find it satisfying. It's not to say I don't think it's a good game. It's easily in the top 10 of games I've played in the last 5 years, but it would still be behind ME1 and ME2. So as far as meeting my expectations for the finale of probably my favorite game series, no it doesn't not satisfy what I was hoping for.

[katamuro]

Yeah I found that, its quite rushed, textures missing, some of the movements are in the wrong order, animations are a bit crude sometimes. the limited options of conversations. Remember in ME1 and 2 we could question characters for more info. Here it seems we get paragon or renegade and thats it unless some stuff is specified.

[someguy1231]

@ OP:

I agree with most of your points, but there's one I strongly disagree with:

Terminus Echoes wrote...
Now why would EA cause this?

Think about it. What other game came out last year that was a big seller? Battlefield 3. If EA had Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3 both released in close proximity to each other like that, their profits would go through the roof, as would their stocks, and they'd be rolling in money. BioWare is lucky to have gotten the delay they got. It's sad to see that the entire franchise just got ruined because of release dates, but that's what BioWare gets for working with EA.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that EA itself decided not to release BF3 and ME3 around the same time for one simple reason: EA was hyping up BF3 to take on Modern Warfare 3, and didn't want any distractions from that. In addtion, it's generally a bad idea for a business to release two highly-demanded products around the same time, as many customers are on a budget, especially with the current state of the economy. In any case, I don't believe that EA wanted to release BF3 and ME3 at the same time, so you should in fact be grateful that BF3's hype machine led to the delay of ME3 (if it did, that is).

As another poster pointed out, the time between ME1 and ME2's release was roughly the same time between ME2 and ME3's release, yet ME2 is widely considered just as good, if not better, than ME1. So why, then, does ME3 show so many more signs of being rushed? We can blame the usual suspects for this (EA, Bioware, multiplayer, etc), but the fact is, lack of development time is no excuse, as we saw with ME2.

[humes spork]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

but it's rote because you choose to. I do all the things you mentioned in your first list in a completely different order each time. ( I also go to the citadel before Omega). The only thing I definitely always do in the same order is going to the citadel and then recruiting Mordin.

That was just how I did my vanguard Shepard...two years ago, plus when LotSB and Arrival came out. My other Shepards I varied the chronology and roughly my squad selections, having latitude to do so based upon class. Even with that said, who you want to take on which missions becomes rote, when you match up missions to enemy groups and what protections they have, because there's no variance in what you face, when, or how they act.

Seriously, as I said I'm playing an adept in ME2 right now. It's been over a year since I've played the game and I still remember what happens and when on what mission so accurately that I caught myself on Grunt's recruitment mission throwing warp bombs at blue suns rocket troopers that hadn't even spawned yet, because I know exactly when they'll spawn and where and exactly what they'll do.

And, a brief sidenote as an edit: BW's promises that ME3 would be more difficult are a massive letdown. I did Jack's and Grunt's recruitment missions, and Horizon, on insanity for the sake of comparison before turning the ME2 difficulty down to casual just to get through the game ASAP. ME3 is, at least in my opinion, way easier across the board.

Modifié par humes spork, 27 mars 2012 - 03:35 .

[LilyasAvalon]

Mixxer5 wrote...

I've question to everyone here: Do You find ME3 satisfying (not asking about ending)?
I'm asking because most of people here write: ME3 without ending is perfect. And for me it's worst part of trilogy, scraped of most story, few side missions, talking with characters reduced to minimum etc, etc...

ME3 certainly had it's moments.

Garrus' and Liara's romances for example were just drop dead gorgeous. Getting peace between the Turians and Krogan? Bloody sweet. Watching a 'worm' take down a reaper? Best seats in the house. Reuniting the Geth and Quarians? Felt so good. Taking down a Reaper on foot? Awesome.

But on an overall spectreme, the rest of the game was pretty dull in comparison. The endings were just an absolute punch in the gut everyone will remember.

[bboynexus]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

But I think ME3 IS close to BioWare's usual quality and, in some ways, is better off than their other games. ME2 showed signs of rushness as well but it's less noticeable because the entire point of the game was about world building and individual character development which was all only lossely unified by the husk of a main plot with the Collectors (which is full of its own issues). In this it was much easier to make. ME3 is more difficult to judge because it's all about the war and it's trying to deal with all your decisions from the past two games on some level or another. And they had about the same amount of time to develop it as they did with ME2, which is ludicrous.

I think it's better than their games in terms of gameplay, but it's lacking in terms of story and side missions and basically just extra content. Which I know isn't for everyone but one of the reasons I love bioware games is because of all the extra nonsense you can do that has no relevance to saving the world.

Then it's fundamentally the wrong game for you to play in context. Why on Earth should you be allowed to do 'extra nonsense' given the state of the Galaxy and the Reaper's arrival?

You really should get over these strict expectations you're setting yourself.

Modifié par bboynexus, 27 mars 2012 - 03:23 .

[Virgil0211]

I love these speculative threads. It's like watching Ancient Aliens, but about video games. :-P

[Fuzzfro]

yes this game does a lot wrong. Hopefully the ending and at least some of the faults can be fixed via dlc and patches.

I do not understand why Bioware decided to put a multiplayer into there game when they were on such a tight schedule as it is. This game had so much potential and I'm really disappointed with the finished product.

[JohnLena]

I blame EA

[TheGeordie]

You never, ever release two big games close to each other, even if they are completely different - it surprised me that EA released SSX and ME3 so close to each other TBH, I guess the marketing was locked in for both of them - people can only play 1 game at once and most people can only afford one game at once so they will nearly always choose between the two on offer rather than buying both.

someguy1231 wrote...

@ OP:

I agree with most of your points, but there's one I strongly disagree with:

Terminus Echoes wrote...
Now why would EA cause this?

Think about it. What other game came out last year that was a big seller? Battlefield 3. If EA had Mass Effect 3 and Battlefield 3 both released in close proximity to each other like that, their profits would go through the roof, as would their stocks, and they'd be rolling in money. BioWare is lucky to have gotten the delay they got. It's sad to see that the entire franchise just got ruined because of release dates, but that's what BioWare gets for working with EA.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that EA itself decided not to release BF3 and ME3 around the same time for one simple reason: EA was hyping up BF3 to take on Modern Warfare 3, and didn't want any distractions from that. In addtion, it's generally a bad idea for a business to release two highly-demanded products around the same time, as many customers are on a budget, especially with the current state of the economy. In any case, I don't believe that EA wanted to release BF3 and ME3 at the same time, so you should in fact be grateful that BF3's hype machine led to the delay of ME3 (if it did, that is).

As another poster pointed out, the time between ME1 and ME2's release was roughly the same time between ME2 and ME3's release, yet ME2 is widely considered just as good, if not better, than ME1. So why, then, does ME3 show so many more signs of being rushed? We can blame the usual suspects for this (EA, Bioware, multiplayer, etc), but the fact is, lack of development time is no excuse, as we saw with ME2.

[Ashii6]

Well said, OP, well said. But I think you forgot about something:
Zaeed-style conversations ( wtf? ). Terrible, just terrible. And lack of neutral response. I've never seen one. Only paragon/renegade. Even investigate option was rare. Unfortunately ME3 is now more like action game instead of RPG. ( I know, it never been a true RPG but ME had some elements )

[Mixxer5]

LilyasAvalon wrote...

Mixxer5 wrote...

I've question to everyone here: Do You find ME3 satisfying (not asking about ending)?
I'm asking because most of people here write: ME3 without ending is perfect. And for me it's worst part of trilogy, scraped of most story, few side missions, talking with characters reduced to minimum etc, etc...

ME3 certainly had it's moments.

Garrus' and Liara's romances for example were just drop dead gorgeous. Getting peace between the Turians and Krogan? Bloody sweet. Watching a 'worm' take down a reaper? Best seats in the house. Reuniting the Geth and Quarians? Felt so good. Taking down a Reaper on foot? Awesome.

But on an overall spectreme, the rest of the game was pretty dull in comparison. The endings were just an absolute punch in the gut everyone will remember.

Oh of course it had some moments. I'm not denying it of course. Mordin sacrificing himself was incredible, Legion too (it should be MUCH harder to achieve peace between Quarians and Geths- they were fighting each other for 300 years). But whole galaxy is just one hub? I wanted to see Thesia, fight for Earth little longer, maybe Palaven... Sur'Kesh is only one research facility (how can Cerberus mount attack on their home planet??). I was hoping that epicness will be waiting on every step and I was fighting with Cerberus mostly (if not they building Crucible would be a piece of cake). Plot is reduced to maximum... There should be moments when game is less satysfying, not moments when ME3 is somehow satysfying...

[ahandsomeshark]

bboynexus wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

But I think ME3 IS close to BioWare's usual quality and, in some ways, is better off than their other games. ME2 showed signs of rushness as well but it's less noticeable because the entire point of the game was about world building and individual character development which was all only lossely unified by the husk of a main plot with the Collectors (which is full of its own issues). In this it was much easier to make. ME3 is more difficult to judge because it's all about the war and it's trying to deal with all your decisions from the past two games on some level or another. And they had about the same amount of time to develop it as they did with ME2, which is ludicrous.

I think it's better than their games in terms of gameplay, but it's lacking in terms of story and side missions and basically just extra content. Which I know isn't for everyone but one of the reasons I love bioware games is because of all the extra nonsense you can do that has no relevance to saving the world.

Then it's fundamentally the wrong game for you to play in context. Why on Earth should you be allowed to do 'extra nonsense' given the state of the Galaxy and the Reaper's arrival?

You really should get over these strict expectations you're setting yourself.

Because it's a video game? Why would I be running around the galaxy finding things for people on the citadel? Why would I be evacuating students when there's an entire army out there? That's the point of it being optional content. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it. I want to do it.

And they can be optional and still relevant to the main story. Why not some side missions on Thessia. Why not actually being able to land on the elcor planet to evacuate them? You're going there anyway how does turning it into an actual planet landing mission change anything? How is it any different from the other side missions you do that could probably be done by any number of other spectres/soldiers in the ME3 universe?

Modifié par ahandsomeshark, 27 mars 2012 - 03:36 .

[AntonioA9011]

Jackiepoo wrote...

I think for a game such as ME3 (where its sheer ideas are massive in scope) are always going to fall short because of time/budget etc. And with the benefits of DLC, why bother working solidly on just the main content when you can work on it later? Bit lazy really. But in all honesty a game of this size I would not have minded waiting for a bit longer to be fully completed. it does feel rushed in alot of areas. The lack of side missions was a bit of a let down. But dont worry, some more DLC will sort that! (sarcasm)

^^^Firstly, they need to work hard on DLC that will change that disgusting filth that BioWare calls an ending, then work on some side quest DLC. Buisness proceeds pleasure.

[magnutz06]

I agree it felt very unpolished more so when compared to the other ME games. Although the game was beautiful it was lacking lots of what made the series so great. Guess well see in April what they do with DLC .

[bboynexus]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

But I think ME3 IS close to BioWare's usual quality and, in some ways, is better off than their other games. ME2 showed signs of rushness as well but it's less noticeable because the entire point of the game was about world building and individual character development which was all only lossely unified by the husk of a main plot with the Collectors (which is full of its own issues). In this it was much easier to make. ME3 is more difficult to judge because it's all about the war and it's trying to deal with all your decisions from the past two games on some level or another. And they had about the same amount of time to develop it as they did with ME2, which is ludicrous.

I think it's better than their games in terms of gameplay, but it's lacking in terms of story and side missions and basically just extra content. Which I know isn't for everyone but one of the reasons I love bioware games is because of all the extra nonsense you can do that has no relevance to saving the world.

Then it's fundamentally the wrong game for you to play in context. Why on Earth should you be allowed to do 'extra nonsense' given the state of the Galaxy and the Reaper's arrival?

You really should get over these strict expectations you're setting yourself.

Because it's a video game? Why would I be running around the galaxy finding things for people on the citadel? Why would I be evacuating students when there's an entire army out there? That's the point of it being optional content. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it. I want to do it.

And they can be optional and still relevant to the main story. Why not some side missions on Thessia. Why not actually being able to land on the elcor planet to evacuate them? You're going there anyway how does turning it into an actual planet landing mission change anything? How is it any different from the other side missions you do that could probably be done by any number of other spectres/soldiers in the ME3 universe?

Because there are constraints and deadlines in game development that cannot be ignored!

Priority must be given to key design goals, and the kind of things you're suggesting are simply too much to accomplush gives the aforementioned constaints.

Modifié par bboynexus, 27 mars 2012 - 03:48 .

[ahandsomeshark]

bboynexus wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

But I think ME3 IS close to BioWare's usual quality and, in some ways, is better off than their other games. ME2 showed signs of rushness as well but it's less noticeable because the entire point of the game was about world building and individual character development which was all only lossely unified by the husk of a main plot with the Collectors (which is full of its own issues). In this it was much easier to make. ME3 is more difficult to judge because it's all about the war and it's trying to deal with all your decisions from the past two games on some level or another. And they had about the same amount of time to develop it as they did with ME2, which is ludicrous.

I think it's better than their games in terms of gameplay, but it's lacking in terms of story and side missions and basically just extra content. Which I know isn't for everyone but one of the reasons I love bioware games is because of all the extra nonsense you can do that has no relevance to saving the world.

Then it's fundamentally the wrong game for you to play in context. Why on Earth should you be allowed to do 'extra nonsense' given the state of the Galaxy and the Reaper's arrival?

You really should get over these strict expectations you're setting yourself.

Because it's a video game? Why would I be running around the galaxy finding things for people on the citadel? Why would I be evacuating students when there's an entire army out there? That's the point of it being optional content. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do it. I want to do it.

And they can be optional and still relevant to the main story. Why not some side missions on Thessia. Why not actually being able to land on the elcor planet to evacuate them? You're going there anyway how does turning it into an actual planet landing mission change anything? How is it any different from the other side missions you do that could probably be done by any number of other spectres/soldiers in the ME3 universe?

Because there are constraints and deadlines in game development that cannot be ignored!

Priority must be given to key design goals, and the kind of things you're suggesting are simply too much to accomplush gives the aforementioned constaints.

Yeah that's kind of the point OP makes of the game being rushed. Developing a game with the expected scope of ME3 in 18 months, while also developing major in depth DLC for ME2, just doesn't make sense. There are tons of games that stay in development for longer than 18 months, EA seems to be a company that just consistently places more rigid time constraints around it's developers. That's not something that cannot be ignored that a choice EA is making, and for the most part it has not been working in their favor. Which is kind of why fans are speaking out about it, because we don't want Bioware to go the same way as some of the other studio's EA has bought.