340 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

Seriously, all three games in the series were rushed to meet deadlines...but ME1 for the 360 was the worst.

Yes, the ending and some elements in ME3 might have been rushed out the door, however almost every element was rushed out the door for ME1. Only DA2 is more rushed and unpolished than ME1...

Horrendous texture pop in, cut and paste environments, bugs galore, horrendous combat mechanics, horrendous gameplay balance, backwards difficulty curve, poorly thoughout inventory....

Plain and simple, MICROSOFT, not EA, rushed the game out the door to meet the holiday season for their 360 exclusive. But since its not EA that did it, its not convienant to criticize. Fact is Microsoft is worse than EA at rushing games....name a Fable game thats not unfinished and unpolished.

Really, ME3 is one of Bioware's MOST polished games. Its also better than ME1 in almost every single way...ME3 doesn't treat the characters like talking codex entries like ME1, ME3 has more organic writing than ME1 unlike the first games robotic like script at many points, ME3 has better combat than both ME1 and ME2, ME3 has a better paced plotline than ME1 and definitely ME2...the only thing ME1 has an advantage is the ending...thats it.

Take of the nostalgia glasses people.....

[Haristo]

I have a strong negative opinion of Microsoft's policies concerning their exclusive games in three words...

Nuts & Bolts.

Modifié par Haristo, 31 mars 2012 - 07:27 .

[Joolazoo]

.....Hard to say ME1 was rushed when ME2 and ME3 are based off criticisms of ME1...it's also almost impossible to compare because the capabilities of gaming are much higher now than when ME1 came out. When compared to it's peers at the time ME1 had fine graphics. I also thought ME1's story was much, much, much better than ME3. Not saying it didn't have crappy controls and the textures sucked, but you can't compare games when they are built upon their predecessor's mistakes...you could do this to almost any series of games and look at the 1st game and laugh at how it's not as good in this or that way.

Modifié par Joolazoo, 31 mars 2012 - 07:28 .

[Militarized]

Wrong, they spent a long time working on ME1.

The largest amount of work was they spent an entire year.. A YEAR or maybe even more sitting in an office every day conceptualizing Mass Effect... writing out what the galaxy was going to be like.

That is the opposite of rushed. Now obviously they had to meet deadlines but ME1 fit it's genre perfectly. No company will ever have unlimited time but Microsoft sure as hell did give them a lot of time and it was ana amazing game for the time it came out in. It's still a great game. 

Modifié par Militarized, 31 mars 2012 - 07:28 .

[Ticondurus]

ME1 > ME3. In fact, it's the best of the whole series.

[luzburg]

me 1 was the frist time bioware made use of the unreal engine

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

Joolazoo wrote...

.....Hard to say ME1 was rushed when ME2 and ME3 are based off criticisms of ME1...it's also almost impossible to compare because the capabilities of gaming are much higher now than when ME1 came out. When compared to it's peers at the time ME1 had fine graphics. I also thought ME1's story was much, much, much better than ME3. Not saying it didn't have crappy controls and the textures sucked, but you can't compare games when they are built upon their predecessor's mistakes...you could do this to almost any series of games and look at the 1st game and laugh at how it's not as good in this or that way.

Well said.

[Dartbeast54q]

Technology has kind of advanced from 2007 or so when ME1 came out to now....so I would fully expect a game from 2007 to have many of them bugs compared to a game from 2012. Also, ME1 ws the first in the series so the whole combat system was a new thing for the game, so for the subsequent games they knew how to make the system better. ME3 doesnt have as many technical glitches for sure, but damn it has over 9000% more logical fails and plot holes then ME1/2 combined imo.

[Tasker]

Best game in the series by far and you reckon it was rushed.

The only thing rushed about ME1 was me rushing to stick the disc in my Xbox.

ME1 had a few minor niggles ( Like the non stacking inventory ) but it pisses all over ME2 and ME3 from a great height.

Less features, less choices and more linear with each game in the series.

[zephyr2025]

ME1 is awesome for the music and the nostalgia, but really it was awful in so many ways when we look back on it. The game play is horrendous compared to ME2 and a lot of the story is just completely ridiculous.

Hey let's bring on the mercenary onto this military ship and bring him along to missions with me because... he wanted to kill the same guy as me.

Oh there's the daughter of one of our enemies, again lets bring her onto a military ship and use her on missions. She does have experience... being a archaeologist...

Garrus is the only alien that makes some sense to bring on the Normandy.

Modifié par zephyr2025, 31 mars 2012 - 07:34 .

[Judaspinn]

There's a few things at play with this idea though. Mass Effect may have had bugs and had a lot of strict deadlines for code and programming, but the writing was solid, comprehensive, and very imaginative.

As with a lot of games series, many players appreciate the first in a series as being good as the start point, with a love of its quirks being one of the reasons to play it. Mass Effect 2 was pushed in a more action oriented direction for gameplay, but it retained a lot of its RPG elements in a semi-rein-visioned format.

Mass Effect 3 sought to dial the more drastic gameplay changes from Mass Effect 2 back in a little, which is where we see a few new things like more skills per character, and a levelling tree more suited to Mass Effect 1. Even weapon mods make their return, in a less cluttered format.

Mass Effect 1 had rushed programming.
Mass Effect 2 had rushed mechanics.
Mass Effect 3 had rushed writing in places.

You tell me which of the above is the WORST for an action RPG.

[0ts0]

The bad user-interface and textures is accepted due to awesome story. Sure, it could be fleshed out.

[Vhalkyrie]

I disagree. ME1 despite being an old game still holds up well during a replay. Many of the gameplay elements are dated, but the game still looks great. The story was a pretty good setup for a space opera. Saren wasn't a typical evil for the sake of evil bad guy. When we are first introduced to Sovereign, the Reapers are frightening. I never got the feeling that ME1 was released before it was ready.

It just doesn't hold up well after playing ME3. The ending doesn't tie in well, at all. Basically it is saying Saren was right all along, and that loopback does not make sense when replaying ME1. Shepard was defiant s/he'd rather die fighting rather than join the reapers in ME1. Then s/he accepts it in ME3.

Modifié par Vhalkyrie, 31 mars 2012 - 07:35 .

[lillitheris]

I've only played on the PC so I'm not sure how much got fixed along the way but there's some truth to what you're saying. There were annoyances especially with having to go back to get the conversations. I always play on easy difficulties so I didn't have much of an issue with combat (and greatly preferred the cooldown mechanism rather than the ridiculous FPS concession of clips, which make 0 lore sense, being in all aspects slower). I didn't even mind the Mako except in the aqueduct. On the other hand, it's not surprising that gameplay mechanics are (by and large) improved as a series progresses.

Doesn't excuse ME3, though, and I'm not sure why you seem to think that it does, somehow? I can fit it in my tiny brain to be critical of both at the same time.

Edit: perhaps I'm being cynical in that last paragraph, if so, I apologize.

Modifié par lillitheris, 31 mars 2012 - 07:35 .

[RogueBot]

True, it was much less polished than ME3 technically, but I still enjoyed it a lot, and more than I did ME3. And there are some games even less polished than ME1 that I enjoy more than ME1. 

So, yeah, it's not about nostalgia glasses, it's more to do with personal taste that overrides things like texture pop-in.

[BatmanPWNS]

Course it was rushed but it was't the last of the trilogy or so called "Best in the series" by Bioware.

[Serp86]

Ticondurus wrote...

ME1 > ME3. In fact, it's the best of the whole series.

I just replayed the damn thing. Its def not the best of the series. Gameplay wise its by FAR the worst . It makes up for it storywise but ME2 is better overall . I just replayed both.

ME3 for the most part was the best game of the series at least for 3/4's then it really took a big nosedive though.

Modifié par Serp86, 31 mars 2012 - 07:42 .

[Warp92]

Judaspinn wrote...

There's a few things at play with this idea though. Mass Effect may have had bugs and had a lot of strict deadlines for code and programming, but the writing was solid, comprehensive, and very imaginative.

As with a lot of games series, many players appreciate the first in a series as being good as the start point, with a love of its quirks being one of the reasons to play it. Mass Effect 2 was pushed in a more action oriented direction for gameplay, but it retained a lot of its RPG elements in a semi-rein-visioned format.

Mass Effect 3 sought to dial the more drastic gameplay changes from Mass Effect 2 back in a little, which is where we see a few new things like more skills per character, and a levelling tree more suited to Mass Effect 1. Even weapon mods make their return, in a less cluttered format.

Mass Effect 1 had rushed programming. 
Mass Effect 2 had rushed mechanics.
Mass Effect 3 had rushed writing in places.

You tell me which of the above is the WORST for an action RPG.

Well said, I've even chosen an answer 

[thinicer]

Why do people insist that all three games were rushed?

Do they have anything to back this up or are people just parroting what angry fanboys are saying?

[Deflagratio]

Mass Effect 1 was a unique case. They took Unreal, and essentially created a layer of the engine that didn't exist. Essentially protoyping an entirely new engine while simultaneously developing the core game. The fact that Mass Effect 1 exists is nothing short of a technological miracle, I can forgive some texture pop-in.

[Hydralysk]

Meh, technical issues I can look past easily if the narrative is strong. The opposite is not true, which is why Crysis can go screw itself.

[clarkusdarkus]

mass effect 1 was more rpg like for my tastes and felt more immersed, also was new at the time back in 2007 so clearly gameplay wasnt gonna be perfect, mass effect 3 is an ordeal and a chore to go through a 2nd playthrough. mass effect 1+ 2 wasnt. its about personal preference. you wouldnt have mass effect 3 if it wasnt for the success of 1.

[mauro2222]

In ME1 you are introduced to the universe and the characters and you're complaining about them being a walking codex?

In ME1 you investigate to advance in the plot, in ME3 you are killing to advance in the plot.

Now you see why ME3 looks more fast paced than ME1?

And I prefer to have rushed gameplay than rushed story.

Modifié par mauro2222, 31 mars 2012 - 07:51 .

[txgoldrush]

zephyr2025 wrote...

ME1 is awesome for the music and the nostalgia, but really it was awful in so many ways when we look back on it. The game play is horrendous compared to ME2 and a lot of the story is just completely ridiculous.

Hey let's bring on the mercenary onto this military ship and bring him along to missions with me because... he wanted to kill the same guy as me.

Oh there's the daughter of one of our enemies, again lets bring her onto a military ship and use her on missions. She does have experience... being a archaeologist...

Garrus is the only alien that makes some sense to bring on the Normandy.

BINGO....why can't other fans realize this...nevermind the fact that in ME1 the characters were used as TALKING CODEX ENTRIES.....



This is BAD BAD storytelling and BAD use of character.

Compare Tali to ME3 Tali



Notice how the writing is FAR more natural here...because she is used as a actual character and not a device used to explain the universe.

[AlexPorto111]

txgoldrush wrote...

Seriously, all three games in the series were rushed to meet deadlines...but ME1 for the 360 was the worst.

Yes, the ending and some elements in ME3 might have been rushed out the door, however almost every element was rushed out the door for ME1. Only DA2 is more rushed and unpolished than ME1...

Horrendous texture pop in, cut and paste environments, bugs galore, horrendous combat mechanics, horrendous gameplay balance, backwards difficulty curve, poorly thoughout inventory....

Plain and simple, MICROSOFT, not EA, rushed the game out the door to meet the holiday season for their 360 exclusive. But since its not EA that did it, its not convienant to criticize. Fact is Microsoft is worse than EA at rushing games....name a Fable game thats not unfinished and unpolished.

Really, ME3 is one of Bioware's MOST polished games. Its also better than ME1 in almost every single way...ME3 doesn't treat the characters like talking codex entries like ME1, ME3 has more organic writing than ME1 unlike the first games robotic like script at many points, ME3 has better combat than both ME1 and ME2, ME3 has a better paced plotline than ME1 and definitely ME2...the only thing ME1 has an advantage is the ending...thats it.

Take of the nostalgia glasses people.....

This.

And ME3 is easily the best of the trilogy,even with the ending.