172 réponses à ce sujet

[mauro2222]

Siansonea II wrote...

Actually, didn't we get the codes to reactivate the Citadel in ME1 from Vigil? He gave Shepard some kind of file, and told Shepard to follow Saren to the control panel. That's how Shepard was able to open the relay's arms.

He gave Shepard a program to slow Sovereign, then he opens the Citadel to allow the fleet to attack Sovy while he was still trying to activate the Relay. I think,

[Batviper]

Siansonea II wrote...

Actually, didn't we get the codes to reactivate the Citadel in ME1 from Vigil? He gave Shepard some kind of file, and told Shepard to follow Saren to the control panel. That's how Shepard was able to open the relay's arms.

Yeah it gives you a data file so that you can take full control of the Citadel temporarily.

[Meshaber]

Siansonea II wrote...
Well, I'm not talking about the execution, I'm talking about the idea. 

The idea was introduced ONLY to provide a means for pushing the time frame to two years after the first game, to take Shepard out of the equation for that length of time, and to reset the combat system and skill trees. It's obvious that the death of Shepard wasn't something that organically arose in the story, that was a key element to the entire arc, it was a Band-Aid solution to a programming problem. So the idea is bad, because it came not from a place of story integrity and internal consistency, but as a "wouldn't it be cool if" pitch to address the nuts-and-bolts conditions of making a new game with an existing character that needs to be reset to 1st Level. And since that's ALL that Lazarus Project accomplishes, you can't say it was done for any other reason. Really, you'd have to be blind not to see it. And even though it was a misguided idea, instead of trying to capitalize on it in ME3, and retroactively justify it, they simply threw in some clips of the Illusive Man and his various henchmen "explaining away" some of the criticism from the fan community. So, bad idea from the get-go. I get that you sometimes need a story solution to a practical problem, but really, in those instances, Fake Drama and Super Magic Technology are not ever the answer.

You are correct, though you misunderstand me, my bad.
The idea, given its roots, is indeed a bad one. However, with good execution (making the time gap actually mean something, not to mention making "dead and resurrected" mean something) it could have added a lot to the story. Killing Shepard wouldn't necessarily have been out of place (unlike the spacechild or, imo, the thorian), it just wasn't done for a good reason or executed well enough to make us think that it was.

[Harley_Dude]

Still like ME1 Liara the best. I don't care for the anime bug eyes they gave her and some other Asari in 2 and 3.

[rickf7666]

 Each game has its strengths and weaknesses.  The following is not an objective review as there is no such thing, but is completely my opinion.

Story:  I have to give this one to ME1.  Clear goals, consistant plot and a great ending, but a bit weak when it comes to fleshing out the characters.  Wrex, Garrus and Liara are the only ones with personal missions.  (warning ME1 spoilers which should be fine here as the forum rules say no ME3 spoilers.)

   Wrex with Virmire and the Genophage cure.  This is a real turning point for the character, when he goes from being just a Merc to a leader of his people.  Or you could just killl him.

   Garrus with Dr. Saleon.  This is a moment where he goes from being a CSec officer to a vigilante.  Or you can just skip this entirely.

   Liara and her mother Matriarch Benezia on Noveria.  There is some great dialog between the two and gives great insight into Liara's background.  Or you could just not bring Liara along on the mission.

   The real problem is that there are no corresponding missions for Tali, Kaidan or Ashley.  You do get a great mission for Tali in ME2, but why so little love for Kaidan/Ashley?  They're with you the longest in ME1 but are almost completely absent from ME2 and only really join you toward the end of ME3.


When it comes to story, ME2 and ME3 don't compare favorably.  ME2 has plot problems right from the beginning with space Jesus.  I really hated that idea.  For a more indepth analysis check out smudboy's youtube review of ME2. www.youtube.com/watch  I will give ME2 one thing and that is character devolopment.

As for ME3 the quality of the story is inconsistant.  Some of the stories are well put together and emotional, but others are full of problems.  Anything with the magic Kai Leng in it truely sucks.  Folks if you have a friend that is in a fight you do not stand a watch the show.  Whoever was tasked with writing the scenes with Kai Leng needs to stop using tired bad action movie tropes, like puting a gun to someones head.  That is a good way to have that gun taken away from you.  There is such a thing reaction time, not to mention that anyone with any gun training is told not to get withing a certain distance of the thing your aiming at, for many reasons.

One last thing about story and that it is obvious that the writers know very little about the military.  Inconsistancies in uniform, rank and standard military protocol is a bit grating to those of us who have served. (Okay I can't really speak for anyone else but it annoyed me.)


Combat:  When it comes to combat I have to give this to ME3, that is inspite of heat sinks which are a bad idea.  The inclusion of big melee attacks was a lot of fun.  The only real problem is the one button for everything.  Crouch, dive, jump over something, run, interact with someing all on the same button?  I don't think I can properly express my frustration with this.  I can't count the number of times I've died because I stuck to a wall instead of running by it.

Minigames: This hands down goes to ME2.  Their hacking and decrypting minigames are fun and make sense for that task.  I just wished that they became harder as the game progressed.  I can't tell you how much I hated the minigame in ME1.  I ended up saving the game before each attempt at the Frogger game. (yes I really sucked at it.)  Of course there are no minigames in ME3 and I think it is poorer for its lack.  I don't see planet scanning as a minigame as there is no challenge in it.  It was just a boring exercise.  Football is a game, jumping-jacks are not.

Vehicles:  ME1 by far had the best in the Mako.  Was it perfect?  Absolutely not.  But once I got the hang of the controls it was a lot of fun.  Not to mention for those of us who liked to explore, having a chunk of planet to do that in was great.  Now I know a lot of people complained about the handling of the Mako and how the environments seemed to similar, well you don't chuck the entire thing, you improve it, which they did not do with the Hammerhead.

Leveling:  I have to give this one to ME1.  One of the biggest problems with the franchise is the leveling inconsistancy from one game to the next.  It really shows a lack of planning.  I've read several times that they had originaly planned for ME to be a trilogy, but each game seems to have been planned and executed independantly, with little to no thought for what has come before.  If this had truely been planned, then there would have been a progression of advancing skills and powers from ME1 to ME3.  Instead they completely scrapped everying from ME1 to make ME2.  I really hate the scrap everything and start over convention.

Now I know that Bioware has said several times that with each game they don't want people to think that they "have" to play the other two, but wouldn't it be in their best intrest if people "wanted" to play the other ones.  One of Mass Effects greatest streangths was its replay value (well until ME3).  So if they can get the players attention with one great game they will want to get the other ones.

Inventory:  Yes there are a lot of problems with the inventory of ME1, but I don't believe I have ever seen a complaint about Borderlands inventory system.  It was very similar, gather a bunch of stuff and sell it for money to get other stuff.  As a matter of fact one of the big selling points of Borderlands was all the bazillions of guns you could get.  Again Bioware needed to impove the inventory system not scrap it.  All the gear in ME2 and ME3 feel very homogenised.

Powers:  Also best in ME1.  One of the things in ME2 and ME3 that I find annoying is that all powers are on the same timer.  Granted that timer is shorter than the individual times for each power in ME1, but I loved chaining together a series of power attacks.  In ME2 and 3 mostly I have one power that I use the most and only level up that one.  In ME1 you really had to make hard choices about where to spend you points.  By the way there is no way to explain why diferent types of amunintion are now powers.  I am glad that they fixed in ME3 the problem with armor making someone immune to biotics.


Now there is no way to "fix" any of the problems with any of these games, they are what they are.  I can only hope that Bioware, or some other company, can learn from the mistakes that have been made with the Mass Effect franchise.  They have told one of the best strories in video games, but its inconsistancies do drag it down.  Really, I would have thought that they would have learned their leason from the Dragon Age 2 curfuffle.

[Siansonea]

Meshaber wrote...

Siansonea II wrote...
Well, I'm not talking about the execution, I'm talking about the idea. 

The idea was introduced ONLY to provide a means for pushing the time frame to two years after the first game, to take Shepard out of the equation for that length of time, and to reset the combat system and skill trees. It's obvious that the death of Shepard wasn't something that organically arose in the story, that was a key element to the entire arc, it was a Band-Aid solution to a programming problem. So the idea is bad, because it came not from a place of story integrity and internal consistency, but as a "wouldn't it be cool if" pitch to address the nuts-and-bolts conditions of making a new game with an existing character that needs to be reset to 1st Level. And since that's ALL that Lazarus Project accomplishes, you can't say it was done for any other reason. Really, you'd have to be blind not to see it. And even though it was a misguided idea, instead of trying to capitalize on it in ME3, and retroactively justify it, they simply threw in some clips of the Illusive Man and his various henchmen "explaining away" some of the criticism from the fan community. So, bad idea from the get-go. I get that you sometimes need a story solution to a practical problem, but really, in those instances, Fake Drama and Super Magic Technology are not ever the answer.

You are correct, though you misunderstand me, my bad.
The idea, given its roots, is indeed a bad one. However, with good execution (making the time gap actually mean something, not to mention making "dead and resurrected" mean something) it could have added a lot to the story. Killing Shepard wouldn't necessarily have been out of place (unlike the spacechild or, imo, the thorian), it just wasn't done for a good reason or executed well enough to make us think that it was.

That's true, they could have taken a bad idea and made it cool. That's exactly what they did with the bad idea "let's give Shepard a geth squadmate!" They made Legion cool, and made him matter in the story. The also took the bad ideas "Let's give Shepard a new asari and a new krogan squadmate", and made them work. But that's not with they did with "Let's let Shepard die, then bring him back to life, so we can reset the baseline on the skill tree and allow the player to respec their Shepard".

[NightKay]

rickf7666 wrote...

 Each game has its strengths and weaknesses.  The following is not an objective review as there is no such thing, but is completely my opinion.

Story:  I have to give this one to ME1.  Clear goals, consistant plot and a great ending, but a bit weak when it comes to fleshing out the characters.  Wrex, Garrus and Liara are the only ones with personal missions.  (warning ME1 spoilers which should be fine here as the forum rules say no ME3 spoilers.)

   Wrex with Virmire and the Genophage cure.  This is a real turning point for the character, when he goes from being just a Merc to a leader of his people.  Or you could just killl him.

   Garrus with Dr. Saleon.  This is a moment where he goes from being a CSec officer to a vigilante.  Or you can just skip this entirely.

   Liara and her mother Matriarch Benezia on Noveria.  There is some great dialog between the two and gives great insight into Liara's background.  Or you could just not bring Liara along on the mission.

   The real problem is that there are no corresponding missions for Tali, Kaidan or Ashley.  You do get a great mission for Tali in ME2, but why so little love for Kaidan/Ashley?  They're with you the longest in ME1 but are almost completely absent from ME2 and only really join you toward the end of ME3.


When it comes to story, ME2 and ME3 don't compare favorably.  ME2 has plot problems right from the beginning with space Jesus.  I really hated that idea.  For a more indepth analysis check out smudboy's youtube review of ME2. www.youtube.com/watch  I will give ME2 one thing and that is character devolopment.

As for ME3 the quality of the story is inconsistant.  Some of the stories are well put together and emotional, but others are full of problems.  Anything with the magic Kai Leng in it truely sucks.  Folks if you have a friend that is in a fight you do not stand a watch the show.  Whoever was tasked with writing the scenes with Kai Leng needs to stop using tired bad action movie tropes, like puting a gun to someones head.  That is a good way to have that gun taken away from you.  There is such a thing reaction time, not to mention that anyone with any gun training is told not to get withing a certain distance of the thing your aiming at, for many reasons.

One last thing about story and that it is obvious that the writers know very little about the military.  Inconsistancies in uniform, rank and standard military protocol is a bit grating to those of us who have served. (Okay I can't really speak for anyone else but it annoyed me.)


Combat:  When it comes to combat I have to give this to ME3, that is inspite of heat sinks which are a bad idea.  The inclusion of big melee attacks was a lot of fun.  The only real problem is the one button for everything.  Crouch, dive, jump over something, run, interact with someing all on the same button?  I don't think I can properly express my frustration with this.  I can't count the number of times I've died because I stuck to a wall instead of running by it.

Minigames: This hands down goes to ME2.  Their hacking and decrypting minigames are fun and make sense for that task.  I just wished that they became harder as the game progressed.  I can't tell you how much I hated the minigame in ME1.  I ended up saving the game before each attempt at the Frogger game. (yes I really sucked at it.)  Of course there are no minigames in ME3 and I think it is poorer for its lack.  I don't see planet scanning as a minigame as there is no challenge in it.  It was just a boring exercise.  Football is a game, jumping-jacks are not.

Vehicles:  ME1 by far had the best in the Mako.  Was it perfect?  Absolutely not.  But once I got the hang of the controls it was a lot of fun.  Not to mention for those of us who liked to explore, having a chunk of planet to do that in was great.  Now I know a lot of people complained about the handling of the Mako and how the environments seemed to similar, well you don't chuck the entire thing, you improve it, which they did not do with the Hammerhead.

Leveling:  I have to give this one to ME1.  One of the biggest problems with the franchise is the leveling inconsistancy from one game to the next.  It really shows a lack of planning.  I've read several times that they had originaly planned for ME to be a trilogy, but each game seems to have been planned and executed independantly, with little to no thought for what has come before.  If this had truely been planned, then there would have been a progression of advancing skills and powers from ME1 to ME3.  Instead they completely scrapped everying from ME1 to make ME2.  I really hate the scrap everything and start over convention.

Now I know that Bioware has said several times that with each game they don't want people to think that they "have" to play the other two, but wouldn't it be in their best intrest if people "wanted" to play the other ones.  One of Mass Effects greatest streangths was its replay value (well until ME3).  So if they can get the players attention with one great game they will want to get the other ones.

Inventory:  Yes there are a lot of problems with the inventory of ME1, but I don't believe I have ever seen a complaint about Borderlands inventory system.  It was very similar, gather a bunch of stuff and sell it for money to get other stuff.  As a matter of fact one of the big selling points of Borderlands was all the bazillions of guns you could get.  Again Bioware needed to impove the inventory system not scrap it.  All the gear in ME2 and ME3 feel very homogenised.

Powers:  Also best in ME1.  One of the things in ME2 and ME3 that I find annoying is that all powers are on the same timer.  Granted that timer is shorter than the individual times for each power in ME1, but I loved chaining together a series of power attacks.  In ME2 and 3 mostly I have one power that I use the most and only level up that one.  In ME1 you really had to make hard choices about where to spend you points.  By the way there is no way to explain why diferent types of amunintion are now powers.  I am glad that they fixed in ME3 the problem with armor making someone immune to biotics.


Now there is no way to "fix" any of the problems with any of these games, they are what they are.  I can only hope that Bioware, or some other company, can learn from the mistakes that have been made with the Mass Effect franchise.  They have told one of the best strories in video games, but its inconsistancies do drag it down.  Really, I would have thought that they would have learned their leason from the Dragon Age 2 curfuffle.

So true, I share your feelings with this! I hoped that they'd fixed the global cooldowns on ME3 and I was disapointed once again.

Also, ME1 felt way more tactical, sure ME3 you have to think before you act but it's more action based, in ME1 you really had to plan ahead, carefully level up, gear and combine powers/squad orders for tactical advantage.

Leveling:  I have to give this one to ME1.  One of the biggest problems with the franchise is the leveling inconsistancy from one game to the next.  It really shows a lack of planning.  I've read several times that they had originaly planned for ME to be a trilogy, but each game seems to have been planned and executed independantly, with little to no thought for what has come before.  If this had truely been planned, then there would have been a progression of advancing skills and powers from ME1 to ME3.  Instead they completely scrapped everying from ME1 to make ME2.  I really hate the scrap everything and start over convention. 

Like Sega did with Shenmue? God I miss that game... The progression from shenmue 1 to 2 was perfect!

[alopexian]

It is rather difficult for me not to regard the three games as on trilogy -- each part builds upon the earlier parts storywise. For that reason it isn't even that easy for me to say afterwards whether or not something happened in ME1 or ME2.

Anyway, I think I do have to agree on the bit about ME1 having the lengthiest and best written single story arc. It is, after all, the basis for all of the three games. That is not to say I didn't enjoy very much the stories in ME2 & ME3 -- ME2 was probably the best ME for me, mostly because of the very well developed characters. And the ending -- that was just epic, very cinematic!

Gameplaywise I however have to say that ME1 was a chore -- I took it as a challenge to do all side quests, even the ones connected to planet hopping and exploring. It was just boring: the same bases all over again with almost same enemies and no dialogue. Driving around with MAKO searching for some lost medals ... I wish I hadn't spent my time doing all that. I don't have that much love for walking through large areas, waiting in elevators and playing "hacking" minigame. Too much time wasted with things that just are .. chores.

ME2 fixed those grievances. It had just the right balance. Even scanning for minerals was ok, even if sometimes a bit boring too. Minigames weren't bad. Side quests were interesting and had effort in them. Somehow ME2 world was also more alive to me than it ever was in ME1. Something to do with the game being more cinematic I guess.

ME3 -- no grievances gameplaywise. I was a bit surprised to find out there were no minigames, but I feel it fits in with the cinematic feeling of the game. Sidequests weren't bad, even if it did feel at times that there isn't as much content as in ME2 or ME1. But if that had something lacking, the other kind of minigames (shooting with cannons etc.) were very nice additions to the game and made it feel more diverse experience.

[Getorex]

alopexian wrote...

It is rather difficult for me not to regard the three games as on trilogy -- each part builds upon the earlier parts storywise. For that reason it isn't even that easy for me to say afterwards whether or not something happened in ME1 or ME2.

Anyway, I think I do have to agree on the bit about ME1 having the lengthiest and best written single story arc. It is, after all, the basis for all of the three games. That is not to say I didn't enjoy very much the stories in ME2 & ME3 -- ME2 was probably the best ME for me, mostly because of the very well developed characters. And the ending -- that was just epic, very cinematic!

Gameplaywise I however have to say that ME1 was a chore -- I took it as a challenge to do all side quests, even the ones connected to planet hopping and exploring. It was just boring: the same bases all over again with almost same enemies and no dialogue. Driving around with MAKO searching for some lost medals ... I wish I hadn't spent my time doing all that. I don't have that much love for walking through large areas, waiting in elevators and playing "hacking" minigame. Too much time wasted with things that just are .. chores.

ME2 fixed those grievances. It had just the right balance. Even scanning for minerals was ok, even if sometimes a bit boring too. Minigames weren't bad. Side quests were interesting and had effort in them. Somehow ME2 world was also more alive to me than it ever was in ME1. Something to do with the game being more cinematic I guess.

ME3 -- no grievances gameplaywise. I was a bit surprised to find out there were no minigames, but I feel it fits in with the cinematic feeling of the game. Sidequests weren't bad, even if it did feel at times that there isn't as much content as in ME2 or ME1. But if that had something lacking, the other kind of minigames (shooting with cannons etc.) were very nice additions to the game and made it feel more diverse experience.

I MAY be all off base and sh*t (it has happened once...no, twice, in all of earth's history) but I really got the impression that this game was REALLY designed with DLC in mind, even moreso than ME2.  I would thus assume that minigames, side missions, exploration, etc, would be coming with DLC.  Not that it matters to me at this point.  If the ending remains unchanged then they can rain down 100s of DLCs and I wont buy or play them.  

[sillyrobot]

mauro2222 wrote...

<snip>

1) You awake aboard the Normandy, then you travel to the Citadel, it takes several days.

2) Sovereign needed to know what the hell the Protheans did to the Keepers or the Citadel itself, that's why he needs the beacons... the use of the Conduit was a side effect of all that investigation, that's why he and the geth attacked the Citadel and its fleet, the ground troops have a clear way to the Citadel by using the Conduit.

1) When you awake, you are told by the doctor you were unconscious for about 15 hours.  Anderson interrupts the conversation, gives you a run down on the situation, and tells you to go see Joker because you're about to dock at the Citadel.  So maybe 16 hours pass, tops.  The Council meeting is called almost immediately on the station, call it another 2-4 hours.  So less than a day all-told.

2) That's my solution -- the one I mentally use each time I play the game.  Unfortunately, it is never referenced in-game nor does Saren come into contact on-screen with anything that could give hm the answer.  All the conversations about Saren has him searching for the Conduit -- even before reaching Ilos; see Benezia, Tali, and Shiala conversations. 

My guess is the writers evolved the plot over time and didn't notice time discrepancy or  the McGuffin they eventually decided on involved circular logic or they didn't have time/inclination to clean it up if they did notice.

[Il Divo]

Meshaber wrote...

Jade Empire still has the best ending. Ever.

Pretty much. That, DA:O, and BG1 are the only Bioware games I really consider to have "quality" endings. Otherwise, the experience always seems to go out with a whimper.

[Il Divo]

freestylez wrote...

ME2:

Anderson: The council doesn't believe you.
Shep: A big f****** reaper exploded on the Citadel. Didn't anyone test samples?
Anderson: Only scraps were recovered. Humungous Reaper scraps. Inconclusive.

There are a number of reasons the Council suddenly believing Shepard about the existence of the Reapers at the end of ME1 is problematic, especially when looked at from a pragmatic standpoint. But that's really the problem when it's impossible to distinguish between giant sentient warships and just giant warships, especially since Shepard has never been able to do anything but foam at the mouth since the start about "Reapers".

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 mars 2012 - 01:51 .

[Euno17]

Acidrain92 wrote...

Euno17 wrote...

How many 'exciting' or 'thrilling' moments did you have in ME-3? I had a 'few' but it was far between. Perhaps Tali's mission. Hmm, The Battle for Earth wasn't even that great, I admit for a few moments during the inital 'victory-fleet' scene I felt awesome but other then that . . .

Im sorry, what? Fighting on Palaven's moon and going up against the Brutes for the first time as Reapers thunder in the background and a bleeding Palaven overlooks everything? Finding the ruins in Tuchanka, the giant thresher maw taking down the reaper as it tries to crush you? The mission at the monestary and fighting the banshees for the first time, which is seriously intense and creepy. Finally bringing peace between the Geth and the Quarians/CURING THE GENOPHAGE. BRINGING TALI BACK TO HER HOME PLANET???

Not to mention what could have happened if you let Tali die/betrayed mordin/betrayed Wrex only for him to try to kill you on the citadel. And there is that whole thing with Thane saving you by sacrificing himself. Not to mention the Rachni mission in THIS game which was just as great.

There are so many epic story moments that happen before the ending in Mass Effect 3 that have been built up for two games. I admit Mass Effect 1 had really awesome moments with Saren. Everything was very mysterious, and that was the whole appeal of the game. But still, ME3 trumps its story in a lot of ways.

So out of everything I posted you quote the ending of it? Nice. I'm not saying ME-3 didn't have it's moments. I sure as hell said it had it's moments but are you really telling me the dreams - the auto-dialogue (yes that's part of the story-aspect), the assassin story-arc etc were better then ME-1? 

What was the last boss-fight in ME-3? What about ME-3's introduction compared to ME-1? What about the lack of romances in ME-3? Remember Shepard's epic ending speech in ME-1? Where was Shepard's speech in ME-3? ( the only thing I can think of resembling an attempt at a speech by shepard is the beginning in which you had no control over.)

What about all the side-stories? Again the prothean relics in ME-1 far trump the dreams in ME-3. The overall pacing of ME-1 was more consistent, clearly and overall better done. You're choices had a direct connect of what happens (and I'm not just talking about the ending which by the way there is a huge decision at the end in ME-1 that sadly didn't transition over to ME-2/3 in terms of the weight of that choice.).

You could talk to your squad between missions in ME-1 whereas in ME-3 you can't. Hell even the way to GET side-missions were better in ME-1. 

And no fighting on the moom was not 'exicting' in terms of story. Sorry. It had a awesome-background but I never felt excited about the story. Sure seeing Garrus there was cool but again the story was not nearly as well done.

The thresher Maw was a cool sight to see i'll admit but a few good moments can't compete with a great story. That's what it comes down to.

[Euno17]

Il Divo wrote...

Euno17 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I think Mass Effect 3 had a stronger story than Mass Effect 1. That is, until the last 5 minutes of the game. From then on it just all sort of all went downhill. I think that is also part of the reason why the fallout over the endings has been so loud and protracted. For a lot of gamers it was sort of like climbing to the summit of Mt Everest, only to tumble off the side before getting to enjoy the view.

Overall I'd give Mass Effect 1 the edge, since the writers managed the hold the whole thing together from start to finish, but I can't help but feel disappointed that ME3 was almost the best game in the series. It had the best gameplay, but what had been an amazing story unravelled in the last few minutes.

WHAT??? That is blasphemous!  ME-3 had a STRONGER story then ME-1??? WHAT!!!!!

Please, please tell me why you think somehow in DETAILED FORM (save for the last five minutes of ME-3) you thought ME-3 had a stronger story.

Good-luck with that. Seriously - I WANT to see you attempt.

Lmao - ME-1 had the best story hands down. HAND's DOWN. (How is ME-3 even in the conversation here?) IF you say ME-3 had the best story - feel free to replay ME-1 because you clearly forgot the pacing and just how good ME-1's story was. The fact you had so much more control over the conversations is what made the story for me.

How many times did you feel like something awesome was happening in ME-1? fifty million times? The first mission when you find your training spectre officer dead and Saren trying to escape maybe?  Or when you found the first prothean beacon?  or when you become the first human spectre? There are so many awesome moments in ME-1!

Sovereign is by far the best Reaper (with the best lines). Everything about ME-1's story is great. Saren being a renegade Spectre and you hunting him down.

Saren was by far the best mini-boss/encounters you face in the trilogy (Don't get me started on the Assasin arc of the ME-3 story - that was so forced it was pathetic. I was pissed off at how many times he 'magically' wins. What a poorly done mini-boss/character.).

You also fight a Matriarch in ME-1 (and also save or kill a Rachni Queen) a thorian . . . you have prothean beacons to uncover (which worked so much better then those stupid dreams in ME-3). Saren also tries to 'control' the Krogan and build his own army . . .

Lets not forget the ending to ME-1. You oepning up the relay to let the 5th fleet in - man what a feeling.

Everything about ME-1's story was all leading down a single path - to bring down Saren (or stop him - either one) and it worked so damn well. Saren was a great enemy opposite of Shepard.

How many 'exciting' or 'thrilling' moments did you have in ME-3? I had a 'few' but it was far between. Perhaps Tali's mission. Hmm, The Battle for Earth wasn't even that great, I admit for a few moments during the inital 'victory-fleet' scene I felt awesome but other then that . . .

I really can't tell if you're being serious or joking, given that you think your opinions must apply to everyone else.

Apparently you need to learn to read. <_<

I can't tell if you are trolling or an idiot. Since I'm not one usually to insult people I'll go with trolling.

"Please, please tell me why you think somehow in DETAILED FORM (save for
the last five minutes of ME-3) you thought ME-3 had a stronger story. "

If my opinion applied to everyone I wouldn't have asked for his. Good-try though.

[Il Divo]

Euno17 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Euno17 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I think Mass Effect 3 had a stronger story than Mass Effect 1. That is, until the last 5 minutes of the game. From then on it just all sort of all went downhill. I think that is also part of the reason why the fallout over the endings has been so loud and protracted. For a lot of gamers it was sort of like climbing to the summit of Mt Everest, only to tumble off the side before getting to enjoy the view.

Overall I'd give Mass Effect 1 the edge, since the writers managed the hold the whole thing together from start to finish, but I can't help but feel disappointed that ME3 was almost the best game in the series. It had the best gameplay, but what had been an amazing story unravelled in the last few minutes.

WHAT??? That is blasphemous!  ME-3 had a STRONGER story then ME-1??? WHAT!!!!!

Please, please tell me why you think somehow in DETAILED FORM (save for the last five minutes of ME-3) you thought ME-3 had a stronger story.

Good-luck with that. Seriously - I WANT to see you attempt.

Lmao - ME-1 had the best story hands down. HAND's DOWN. (How is ME-3 even in the conversation here?) IF you say ME-3 had the best story - feel free to replay ME-1 because you clearly forgot the pacing and just how good ME-1's story was. The fact you had so much more control over the conversations is what made the story for me.

How many times did you feel like something awesome was happening in ME-1? fifty million times? The first mission when you find your training spectre officer dead and Saren trying to escape maybe?  Or when you found the first prothean beacon?  or when you become the first human spectre? There are so many awesome moments in ME-1!

Sovereign is by far the best Reaper (with the best lines). Everything about ME-1's story is great. Saren being a renegade Spectre and you hunting him down.

Saren was by far the best mini-boss/encounters you face in the trilogy (Don't get me started on the Assasin arc of the ME-3 story - that was so forced it was pathetic. I was pissed off at how many times he 'magically' wins. What a poorly done mini-boss/character.).

You also fight a Matriarch in ME-1 (and also save or kill a Rachni Queen) a thorian . . . you have prothean beacons to uncover (which worked so much better then those stupid dreams in ME-3). Saren also tries to 'control' the Krogan and build his own army . . .

Lets not forget the ending to ME-1. You oepning up the relay to let the 5th fleet in - man what a feeling.

Everything about ME-1's story was all leading down a single path - to bring down Saren (or stop him - either one) and it worked so damn well. Saren was a great enemy opposite of Shepard.

How many 'exciting' or 'thrilling' moments did you have in ME-3? I had a 'few' but it was far between. Perhaps Tali's mission. Hmm, The Battle for Earth wasn't even that great, I admit for a few moments during the inital 'victory-fleet' scene I felt awesome but other then that . . .

I really can't tell if you're being serious or joking, given that you think your opinions must apply to everyone else.

Apparently you need to learn to read. <_<

I can't tell if you are trolling or an idiot. Since I'm not one usually to insult people I'll go with trolling.

"Please, please tell me why you think somehow in DETAILED FORM (save for
the last five minutes of ME-3) you thought ME-3 had a stronger story. "

If my opinion applied to everyone I wouldn't have asked for his. Good-try though.

Sorry, but you kind of lose any credibility when you start throwing around phrases like "clearly you need to replay ME1 because you forgot how good it was". Add on to that your assumption that people share your agreement on all the "awesome" moments ME1 had. And you don't get extra credit for saying please.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 mars 2012 - 05:40 .

[PiEman]

Acidrain92 wrote...

Spectre_Shepard wrote...

ME1 story was amazing.

ME2 gameplsy was amazing.

ME3 almost topped both... then it didn't.

this. And actually it did top both. The storytelling in ME3 is a lot better than the storytelling in ME1 and 2...until the ending that is.

Overall, its a better game than ME1 and ME2 though. Aside from that stupid ass journal <.<

Yeah, I do like Mass Effect 3 the most so far.

Things like Tuchanka, Rannoch, and all the variations based on the last two games make it so amazing to play.

And then I get to cap it all off by picking my favorite color. Out of three <_<

[Cainne Chapel]

Honestly Rannoch, Tunchanka (and to a lesser extent Side quests with ME2 cameos) made the game for me, heck I even liked London and Retaking the citadel (kinda wish I got to shoot the *** instead of **** but *shrug* what can ya do).

Sure there were plot holes in ME3 like 1 and 2 but I felt the culmination of some of those strings brought up in ME1 and 2 had a GREAT payoff in ME3 and I also liked seeing all the different little permutations there of (Wrex good and bad, Legion Good and Bad, Tali good and bad, etc)

Granted I would of liked a few MORE cameos from side characters (Gianna, SHiala, Kal'Reegar, heck even Aresh woulda been nice) as I'm not a fan of Email deaths or twitter deaths... but at least you got to HEAR about some of em. Still woulda been nice to see em. Heck even Balak finally showed up (gosh i wanted to put a bullet in his head for a long time...)

But yeah thats what made ME3 for me really was finishing out those threads left from ME1 and 2

[ile_1979]

alopexian wrote...

It is rather difficult for me not to regard the three games as on trilogy -- each part builds upon the earlier parts storywise. For that reason it isn't even that easy for me to say afterwards whether or not something happened in ME1 or ME2.

Anyway, I think I do have to agree on the bit about ME1 having the lengthiest and best written single story arc. It is, after all, the basis for all of the three games. That is not to say I didn't enjoy very much the stories in ME2 & ME3 -- ME2 was probably the best ME for me, mostly because of the very well developed characters. And the ending -- that was just epic, very cinematic!

Gameplaywise I however have to say that ME1 was a chore -- I took it as a challenge to do all side quests, even the ones connected to planet hopping and exploring. It was just boring: the same bases all over again with almost same enemies and no dialogue. Driving around with MAKO searching for some lost medals ... I wish I hadn't spent my time doing all that. I don't have that much love for walking through large areas, waiting in elevators and playing "hacking" minigame. Too much time wasted with things that just are .. chores.

ME2 fixed those grievances. It had just the right balance. Even scanning for minerals was ok, even if sometimes a bit boring too. Minigames weren't bad. Side quests were interesting and had effort in them. Somehow ME2 world was also more alive to me than it ever was in ME1. Something to do with the game being more cinematic I guess.

ME3 -- no grievances gameplaywise. I was a bit surprised to find out there were no minigames, but I feel it fits in with the cinematic feeling of the game. Sidequests weren't bad, even if it did feel at times that there isn't as much content as in ME2 or ME1. But if that had something lacking, the other kind of minigames (shooting with cannons etc.) were very nice additions to the game and made it feel more diverse experience.

To be honest i found those same features you dislike to be attractive. Sure finding all the Turian insignia was chours, but why would you unless you were prepared for such a thing. I had replayed the game 3 times before i actually set about to compleate all the quests, And all the MAKO bashing we haf back in the days, if only those people could have seen the future. Instead of Atmospheric open space landscapes we got tunnels, miles upon miles of tunels. I'd take ME1 approach over ME2 and 3 every day of the week, Even in gameplay. You could duck, youcould sprint, you could holster. You could train your weapon skills and it would reflect on you performance. The only thing that really bothered me was the lack of ammo. I always thought that limited ammo gives more urgency to a shooting encounter.

[Getorex]

ile_1979 wrote...

alopexian wrote...

It is rather difficult for me not to regard the three games as on trilogy -- each part builds upon the earlier parts storywise. For that reason it isn't even that easy for me to say afterwards whether or not something happened in ME1 or ME2.

Anyway, I think I do have to agree on the bit about ME1 having the lengthiest and best written single story arc. It is, after all, the basis for all of the three games. That is not to say I didn't enjoy very much the stories in ME2 & ME3 -- ME2 was probably the best ME for me, mostly because of the very well developed characters. And the ending -- that was just epic, very cinematic!

Gameplaywise I however have to say that ME1 was a chore -- I took it as a challenge to do all side quests, even the ones connected to planet hopping and exploring. It was just boring: the same bases all over again with almost same enemies and no dialogue. Driving around with MAKO searching for some lost medals ... I wish I hadn't spent my time doing all that. I don't have that much love for walking through large areas, waiting in elevators and playing "hacking" minigame. Too much time wasted with things that just are .. chores.

ME2 fixed those grievances. It had just the right balance. Even scanning for minerals was ok, even if sometimes a bit boring too. Minigames weren't bad. Side quests were interesting and had effort in them. Somehow ME2 world was also more alive to me than it ever was in ME1. Something to do with the game being more cinematic I guess.

ME3 -- no grievances gameplaywise. I was a bit surprised to find out there were no minigames, but I feel it fits in with the cinematic feeling of the game. Sidequests weren't bad, even if it did feel at times that there isn't as much content as in ME2 or ME1. But if that had something lacking, the other kind of minigames (shooting with cannons etc.) were very nice additions to the game and made it feel more diverse experience.

To be honest i found those same features you dislike to be attractive. Sure finding all the Turian insignia was chours, but why would you unless you were prepared for such a thing. I had replayed the game 3 times before i actually set about to compleate all the quests, And all the MAKO bashing we haf back in the days, if only those people could have seen the future. Instead of Atmospheric open space landscapes we got tunnels, miles upon miles of tunels. I'd take ME1 approach over ME2 and 3 every day of the week, Even in gameplay. You could duck, youcould sprint, you could holster. You could train your weapon skills and it would reflect on you performance. The only thing that really bothered me was the lack of ammo. I always thought that limited ammo gives more urgency to a shooting encounter.

I much preferred the "physics" of weapons in ME1 to that in ME2 and 3.  You had to adapt yourself to the weapons and technology in that universe rather than requiring that today's system be forced into the game.  With ME2 and 3, ammo became the same thing as in any and all shooters: ammo laying around, spend a mag, eject and reload.  There was no reason to go into any elaborate physics and design info on weapons in that case - just use bullets because you end up with the same exact behavior.

ME1 explained what the weapons did, how they operated, and logically extended from there.  Firing your weapon generates heat so you need to watch your heat buildup.  Simple.  WIthout that, it is virtually unlimited ammo and unlimited fire (ME2 and 3).

[crazyrabbits]

tehturian wrote...

 All I can say is...what an ending. This is perhaps the 6th or 7th time I've completed it however I still get shivers down my spine when I see Shepherd emerging from the rubble with a smirk. It's a shame that the other Mass effect games couldn't capture that "f yeah" emotion. 

ME2's "No One Left Behind" ending was just as awesome. Going through the ship and knowing I saved everyone, and that my team was gearing up for the next mission while "The End" was reprised in the background, was such a great feeling.

[Euno17]

Sorry, but you kind of lose any credibility when you start throwing around phrases like "clearly you need to replay ME1 because you forgot how good it was". Add on to that your assumption that people share your agreement on all the "awesome" moments ME1 had. And you don't get extra credit for saying please.  

There is credibility issues on internet forums? What?

It's not an assumption people will share my opinion. THERE are people who share my opinion but that's ill-relevant. (might want to look around to see a few people even in this thread talking about ME-1 having the best-story)

What is relevant is this line: "clearly you need to replay ME1 because you forgot how good it was." Damn straight I said that but stop trying to turn it into something it's not. I said it out of suprise that some people even had a view that ME-3 had the best story.  Seriously, I stil simply can't believe how ME-3 is even in the conversation in terms of story. 

Again, stop trolling - had I not listed my own reasons why i thought ME-1 was better and asked for his opinion in turn it'd be one thing. Clearly you're pulling at straws hoping to uhh what was that again? to destory my 'credibility' . <_<

Way to pull one line out of that huge post and try to spin it.  

Getorex wrote...
I much preferred the "physics" of weapons in
ME1 to that in ME2 and 3.  You had to adapt yourself to the weapons and
technology in that universe rather than requiring that today's system be
forced into the game.  With ME2 and 3, ammo became the same thing as in
any and all shooters: ammo laying around, spend a mag, eject and
reload.  There was no reason to go into any elaborate physics and design
info on weapons in that case - just use bullets because you end up with
the same exact behavior.

ME1 explained what the weapons did, how
they operated, and logically extended from there.  Firing your weapon
generates heat so you need to watch your heat buildup.  Simple.  WIthout
that, it is virtually unlimited ammo and unlimited fire (ME2 and 3). [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/blushing.png[/smilie]

I didn't like the cool-down system in ME-1 though - it felt more of a hinderance then anything else. Maybe they could have fine-tuned it somehow in ME-2? 

I do miss all the different guns though. Sure once you got to the best guns there was no reason to pick-up guns (in subsequent playthroughs) but even so - I wish a better inventory system could have made it's way onto ME-2.

Modifié par Euno17, 31 mars 2012 - 11:10 .

[Tirigon]

ME1 is clearly the best in the series. Just like Matrix is better than its 2 sequels, and Halo is, and Dragon Age is, and even CoD Modern Warfare was better than MW 2 and 3.

[rickf7666]

Tirigon wrote...

ME1 is clearly the best in the series. Just like Matrix is better than its 2 sequels, and Halo is, and Dragon Age is, and even CoD Modern Warfare was better than MW 2 and 3.

I see a pattern here.  One of the problems is that they feel they need to reinvent things with any sequels instead of just impoving what they already found was successful.

[fchopin]

What can i say, i love ME1 and i like ME3.

[ZLurps]

rickf7666 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

ME1 is clearly the best in the series. Just like Matrix is better than its 2 sequels, and Halo is, and Dragon Age is, and even CoD Modern Warfare was better than MW 2 and 3.

I see a pattern here.  One of the problems is that they feel they need to reinvent things with any sequels instead of just impoving what they already found was successful.

I think the series was (for most parts) so great because games veren't carbon copies of each others. For example, ME1 is more akin of classic scifi and ME2 has more "cyberpunkish" feel in it. ME3 is a war story, yet again different tone in comparison to previous games.

However,I agree that  some things weren't necessarily change for better. Personally I feel focusing to characters in ME2 might have worked out better if there were less characters. Also, main plot doesn't really go anywhere but in Arrival DLC.
What comes to ME3, I actually wish they were done some reinventing there. It was good that Cerberus story arch was closed, but IMO Cerberus was over used.