340 réponses à ce sujet

[Heather Cline]

The whole thing is goldrush that Mass Effect is based on choice and interactivity and customization. Removing that completely destroys the game series. If the series had started off like that in the first place then many of the fans wouldn't be so freaking upset about it. Instead Bioware just up and said screw the fans. They even promised that the only mode of the game that would have auto-dialogue would be Action mode. However RPG and Story mode both which were supposed to be heavy on the control, customization and interactivity did not have what was promised. Auto-dialogue ran rampant in those two modes which was promised not to.

So your argument of better writing, voice acting, and conversations doesn't fit in the two modes that were promised full control over dialogue and customization which we did not get.

[alpha54]

Gotta agree with the OP here. I am currently trying to replay ME1 and it is almost impossible. The story is still great, but the gameplay does not hold up at all. Really clunky and frustrating and buggy.

[txgoldrush]

MrHibachi wrote...

There was far more character depth and interaction in ME1 than in 3. That stuck out like a sore thumb. I admit though that I never did a real dedicated renegade playthrough (though I did try) so I can't really speak to that specific comparison.

WRONG...there is more in ME3 in regards to party.

In ME1 there was only three conversations plus one more if romance with companions...in ME3 there are five or six, in both the ship and the citadel. Javik has four, being a DLC character, more than ME1's characters. Hell, Miranda has three chats, just as many as an ME1 character.

And in ME1, they are done talking codex style where they explain everything to Shep, it is the worst with Tali, who was basically used as a library for Quarians because they didn't even bother to put more into the game or include the Migrant Fleet. She might as well be a sexier codex voice over. Not only this, weak chaarcter sidequests, unlike ME2's quests or how ME3 intergrates characters into the story.

ME3 has investigate portions, but instead of treating it like a codex, it is a natural conversation where Shep chimes in. Not only that, the crew and Shep feel more real with eachother. Nevermind the characters interact with eachother, missing in ME2, and only in elevators in ME1. Hell, there is a lot to learn about them without direct interaction.

[ArmaVirumqueCano]

txgoldrush wrote...

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

Some good points here, but all those sins are forgiveable in light of the immense achievement of the game's storytelling and universe.  You could accuse Jade Empire of the same flaws, but man -- that DIALOGUE.  Incredible.  

It's the STORY, man -- the STORY.

One point, though: I actually prefer RPG's to have "backwards difficulty curves," as you call them.  If I get to level 50, I SHOULD be a bad****.  I always hated how in Bethesda games you would reach a certain level and then different animals suddenly populate the world...

I challenge you: reexperience the Rachni Queen conversation, or the "This exchange is over" conversation with Sovereing from ME1.  After that, who CARES about some texture pop-in...?

[Heather Cline]

You know what you are continually trying to defend your failing view point. I just tore down your entire argument with one post of a side by side view of the facts of bugs between ME1 and ME3. I compared side by side the problems with ME1 to ME3 and ME3 came out worse.

You can't defend against that.

As for the Mako yeah the Mako had problems I can easily agree upon that. As for freezing I didn't have any freezing problems. So I guess it sucks to be you that your system would freeze up when playing.

[AnsinJung]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

It seems to have evolved like this:

Talking Codex conversations.  Pro:  better than reading the codex.  First time is very interesting and remembered with love.  Con:  too much one-sided conversation, not so interesting on replay.

Evolve to more personal questions like in ME2:  Pro:  Mordin Solus (he's funny every play through), more give and take (Shepard talks more than just listening for mintues)  Con:  conversations by player exploration make world evolve around main character.

This leads to ME3, where characters also talk with each other.  Pro:  very interesting and previously unexplored conversations.  Garrus/James, Liara/Joker, Chakwas/Adams, etc.  Con:  Now Shepard isn't involved enough for the player, as some conversations are on longer autopilot.  Personally, I liked a lot of this as it was less monologues talking to Shepard's one liners.  However, ME3 also seemed to just have less convos.

Some problems are not due to certain aspects being forced out, but neglected when new and exciting things came into focus.  Overall, I think ME2 did the best job, because there was simply more to talk about, or so it feels.  ME3's added conversations between other people was a huge plus, but it lacked some of the freedom and exploration when talking to people and seemed to have less conversation overall.  It may also be the nature of the beast, as everyone's worried about the Reapers.  There isn't much fun to talk about.  Maybe that's why one of the best scenes is shooting the breeze with Garrus.

[txgoldrush]

ArmaVirumqueCano wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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

Some good points here, but all those sins are forgiveable in light of the immense achievement of the game's storytelling and universe.  You could accuse Jade Empire of the same flaws, but man -- that DIALOGUE.  Incredible.  

It's the STORY, man -- the STORY.

One point, though: I actually prefer RPG's to have "backwards difficulty curves," as you call them.  If I get to level 50, I SHOULD be a bad****.  I always hated how in Bethesda games you would reach a certain level and then different animals suddenly populate the world...

I challenge you: reexperience the Rachni Queen conversation, or the "This exchange is over" conversation with Sovereing from ME1.  After that, who CARES about some texture pop-in...?

Play an Ultima game or Fallout games other than FO3....that is how leveling is done...NO backwards difficulty curves You go to a high level area, you die at lower levels. ME1 failed to give you new enemies past the Geth Primes, you get stronger while the enemies stay the same. That is horrible game balancing.

TW2 was accused of the same thing, but they fixed this through patches. The beginning should nbever be tougher than the end.

And really the Mordin sacrifice and Tali's suicide beat any ME1 moment.....and really ME1's greatest moment was a quest exclusive to colonists.

[SuperVulcan]

Ticondurus wrote...

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

I feel the same way.

[Heather Cline]

I'm done here. I've proven my point quite well. I take a bow and leave you all to try and convince this person who will not be convinced due to the fact that he/she thinks that he/she is right no matter how much evidence is put forward.

Good night everyone.

[DarkWyccan]

N7Menma wrote...
ME1 took like 4 years to develop. I don't know how rushed that is. For the time it came out, it was incredible.

Not sure how many people on the forum work in corporate software companies; but 4 years is an insanely long time for developing software.  You are paying 4 years to employees for a product has yet to make any profit, and you are gambling that it will win back all the money used to develop the product and more.  That is why some companies release the product with bugs, so they can get paid in order to continue working on the product (i.e. patch the bugs); Bethesda is known for doing this a lot.

[MrHibachi]

txgoldrush wrote...

ME3 has investigate portions, but instead of treating it like a codex, it is a natural conversation where Shep chimes in. Not only that, the crew and Shep feel more real with eachother. Nevermind the characters interact with eachother, missing in ME2, and only in elevators in ME1. Hell, there is a lot to learn about them without direct interaction.

The way you keep using that word codex makes it sound like you have less appreciation for the longer conversations, which would explain why you seem to like ME3 so much.  I agree that ME2 has great immersion and I loved the loyalty missions - those were a fun improvement.  Of course they had far more "main" characters to give back story to for you to delve into.  Also notice how Mass Effect 1 and 2 both start with your character being able to engage characters in dialogue about what is going on or what is about to happen, giving you brief backstory that flows with the scene and establishes character and depth.  ME3 lacked that.  I talked more about this in my fan review - it was not a subtle change from the other Mass Effect games, and I'm not the only one who realized that ME3 was deficient in this regard.  If you liked the system more in ME3 who am I to tell you differently.  Its a matter of preference.

Personally I liked the beefier dialogue in ME1 more and I think that more emphasis on that kind of a thing is natural for a role playing game.

[txgoldrush]

Heather Cline wrote...

You know what you are continually trying to defend your failing view point. I just tore down your entire argument with one post of a side by side view of the facts of bugs between ME1 and ME3. I compared side by side the problems with ME1 to ME3 and ME3 came out worse.

You can't defend against that.

As for the Mako yeah the Mako had problems I can easily agree upon that. As for freezing I didn't have any freezing problems. So I guess it sucks to be you that your system would freeze up when playing.

However here is what matters

ME3 has a better plot despite the ending, it is far better paced than ME1.

ME3 involves the characters in the story throughout, ME1 they barely particpate except for recruiiment and Virmire'

ME3 characters are far more multidimensional as companions and NPCs than in ME1.

ME1 characters lack development outside of Wrex, in ME3 not only do companions get development, but many NPCs do like Tarquin Victus.

ME3 feels like characters that naturally speak to Shep and eachother, ME1's are talking codex entries.

ME3 is far more emotional and involves the human element more, its like ME1's "I Remember Me' but throughout.

ME3's combat is far superior and the classes play far different, ME1's classes re cut and paste.

ME3 is by far more balanced than ME1, with less exploits.

Choices matter a bunch more in ME3 than in ME1, even during the game.

For all the big things, ME3 does better.

[C9316]

Yeah...um

Story: ME1 > ME3

Character Interaction: ME1 >>> ME3

Gameplay: ME3 >>> ME1

Quest Management: ME1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ME3

Custimazation: And I know some will disagree with me but ME3 > ME1 (sure you can only put two mods on a gun, but to me mods actually do something this time around)

I'd say just comparing the two just as games ME3 is clearly better, however comparing them within the context of this series I'd have to give it to ME1.

[MrHibachi]

C9316 wrote...

Yeah...um

Story: ME1 > ME3

Character Interaction: ME1 >>> ME3

Gameplay: ME3 >>> ME1

Quest Management: ME1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ME3

Custimazation: And I know some will disagree with me but ME3 > ME1 (sure you can only put two mods on a gun, but to me mods actually do something this time around)

I'd say just comparing the two just as games ME3 is clearly better, however comparing them within the context of this series I'd have to give it to ME1.

Agree with all of this.

not this though   "I'd say just comparing the two just as games ME3 is clearly better"

Modifié par MrHibachi, 01 avril 2012 - 03:48 .

[Terraforming2154]

Sure ME1 had flaws but I still personally think it was the strongest game of the series and it is the one that I can replay the most and not get sick of. That isn't nostalgia talking, for me at least.

Maybe it comes down to the fact that I really liked the exploration in ME1 (I feel like I'm one of the few that really feels this way). I can't deny that it had its faults, but it still spoke to what I personally love about science fiction in the first place: discovering the unknown and seeing worlds vastly different than our own. I thought the galaxy felt huge, mysterious, and equal parts frightening and beautiful in ME1. I didn't feel that at all with the other two games, particularly ME3, where every planet you visited could essentially be Earth (there was no place striking like Rayingri or Solcrum). It may be stupid, but before ME3 came out, I was actually daydreaming about how they would bring back planetary exploration and make it better than it was in ME1 (like making the terrain easier to drive across or making small colonies which we could visit).

I can understand why you like the 2nd and 3rd game better OP, but I can't help but like the first game the most. They all have their faults though, I'll give you that.

[Gmandam]

me1 was the best. The gameplay was a bit boring compared to many shooters and I never noticed the copy/paste environments until I ran out of stuff to do.

The characters were largely walking codexes but this doesn't detract from them or Shepard because the logical thing to do when encountering a new concept i.e. the pilgrimage is to ask about it and while codexes are quite useful they are also subject to inherent bias of the author you only have to look at the me2 description of sovereign to see that.

What me1 did was to give you a insiders view from a person who actually lived in that culture compared to someone who might be outside that culture looking in and It also characterized each of the characters. Any of the further development from me2 or me3 was based on the work done by me1 so you can't really compare them fairly.

An example is if you came into me2 as newbie and you then met tali.You would wonder who she is? why does she know me? why is she working with the people she is working with?. All of those questions are answered by me1. She is tali zorah nar rayya. She is a quarian. She worked with you to stop the reapers.She is working with the other quarians because her people are stuck in space with very little resources or population. Therefore if one of them is in fair bit of danger and feels the need to ask for help (he is also has a reputation for being a little unhinged) coupled with the fact that a human colony might have large amounts of salvage means that while underhanded she has a clear motive for being there.

All of that being described by what happened in me1.

That said you are allowed your own opinion even I do disagree (along with many others).

[txgoldrush]

MrHibachi wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

ME3 has investigate portions, but instead of treating it like a codex, it is a natural conversation where Shep chimes in. Not only that, the crew and Shep feel more real with eachother. Nevermind the characters interact with eachother, missing in ME2, and only in elevators in ME1. Hell, there is a lot to learn about them without direct interaction.

The way you keep using that word codex makes it sound like you have less appreciation for the longer conversations, which would explain why you seem to like ME3 so much.  I agree that ME2 has great immersion and I loved the loyalty missions - those were a fun improvement.  Of course they had far more "main" characters to give back story to for you to delve into.  Also notice how Mass Effect 1 and 2 both start with your character being able to engage characters in dialogue about what is going on or what is about to happen, giving you brief backstory that flows with the scene and establishes character and depth.  ME3 lacked that.  I talked more about this in my fan review - it was not a subtle change from the other Mass Effect games, and I'm not the only one who realized that ME3 was deficient in this regard.  If you liked the system more in ME3 who am I to tell you differently.  Its a matter of preference.

Personally I liked the beefier dialogue in ME1 more and I think that more emphasis on that kind of a thing is natural for a role playing game.

Because using characters as talking codex entries is not showing but telling...its lazy storytelling. Instead of being shown their development, you are told their development. Its like they have already mostly developed, and this was a problem in most Bioware games.

Look at TW2, the characters reveal themsleves at percise strategic moments for maximum impact in the plot. Does Ves and Roche give you their backstory at first? No...they give it to you much later when you need to know it. Deus Ex Human Revolution, same thing....which is less lazy. Hell Flygirl doesn't reveal her backstory until it was appropriate, when it matters in the plot or the area.

Beefier doesn't mean better, it can mean worse. If things are overexpalined, its unnatural. This is exactly what Tali was doing in ME1. Hell, the Migrant Fleets culture plays NO role in ME1....

And when does each game in the series have to follow the same formula....and really, I think TW2 and DXHR encouraged Bioware to handle Shepard very similiarly in ME3.

[DnVill]

All games are rushed that's why they release patches afterwards same goes with any commercial software out there... If they weren't the fat cat corporates would lose their precious money

ME1 had the best story. ME3 had the worst ending in video game history

Modifié par DnVill, 01 avril 2012 - 03:52 .

[Gmandam]

We are told their development because the universe had already started when we got in it and Shepard is in a military setting you don't want any surprises when engaging in a mission so it made sense that he would probe for information

[Heather Cline]

gold rush I am going to come back for one last rebuttal because I'm a glutton for punishment. Your original argument was that ME1 was rushed and is worse than ME3 based in the bugs and many issues.

That is your original argument. You are now trying to switch your argument to base it off of character classes, character development and interaction.

Sorry but you are not allowed to do that to defend your failing argument. Either stick with the argument you first presented or capitulate. In a court of law if you cannot keep to your original argument you would have been told by the judge you lost your case and therefore using any other kind of argument outside of the original argument would not be allowed.

As such I have pointed out that within the basis of your original argument that ME1 is clearly the superior game.

I thus conclude that your new argument is not pertinent to the original argument I debunked with my facts. Switching to another topic to try and support your original argument does not fly with me and nor would it fly in a court of law.

So I hope you enjoyed the argument as much as I did. I know I enjoyed winning it.

Have a nice evening.

[MrnDpty161]

I will have to call BS at best. You can't possibly be comparing an old game like ME1 with the newer stuff coming out. It was the game! Wow. Yeah --- of course the game play is going to not look right to you, things are going to be a little off - I don't think its even the same graphics engine.

At least you had a complete story and an ending that was more complete ( may I see more fulfilling too) than the other 2! --- certainly 3

You couldn't beat it ---  Reaper destroyed -  fleets attacking it ( won ),  Citadel maintained yet damaged, and depending upon your choices,  the council could be in tact, your LI maintains itself,  and  gasp ---- the hero of the day climbs out of the smoldering ruin of his advesary! Did I mention there was a pretty well rounded villian to boot?

Can't say that with ME3 can you.  Nope. Didn't think so.

Modifié par MrnDpty161, 01 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[MrHibachi]

txgoldrush wrote...

MrHibachi wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

ME3 has investigate portions, but instead of treating it like a codex, it is a natural conversation where Shep chimes in. Not only that, the crew and Shep feel more real with eachother. Nevermind the characters interact with eachother, missing in ME2, and only in elevators in ME1. Hell, there is a lot to learn about them without direct interaction.

The way you keep using that word codex makes it sound like you have less appreciation for the longer conversations, which would explain why you seem to like ME3 so much.  I agree that ME2 has great immersion and I loved the loyalty missions - those were a fun improvement.  Of course they had far more "main" characters to give back story to for you to delve into.  Also notice how Mass Effect 1 and 2 both start with your character being able to engage characters in dialogue about what is going on or what is about to happen, giving you brief backstory that flows with the scene and establishes character and depth.  ME3 lacked that.  I talked more about this in my fan review - it was not a subtle change from the other Mass Effect games, and I'm not the only one who realized that ME3 was deficient in this regard.  If you liked the system more in ME3 who am I to tell you differently.  Its a matter of preference.

Personally I liked the beefier dialogue in ME1 more and I think that more emphasis on that kind of a thing is natural for a role playing game.

Because using characters as talking codex entries is not showing but telling...its lazy storytelling. Instead of being shown their development, you are told their development. Its like they have already mostly developed, and this was a problem in most Bioware games.

Look at TW2, the characters reveal themsleves at percise strategic moments for maximum impact in the plot. Does Ves and Roche give you their backstory at first? No...they give it to you much later when you need to know it. Deus Ex Human Revolution, same thing....which is less lazy. Hell Flygirl doesn't reveal her backstory until it was appropriate, when it matters in the plot or the area.

Beefier doesn't mean better, it can mean worse. If things are overexpalined, its unnatural. This is exactly what Tali was doing in ME1. Hell, the Migrant Fleets culture plays NO role in ME1....

And when does each game in the series have to follow the same formula....and really, I think TW2 and DXHR encouraged Bioware to handle Shepard very similiarly in ME3.

They fleshed out a big universe with all that dialogue, which is why the games got so popular in the first place.  It also wasn't always extremely long dialogue.  At times it did serve to show rather than to tell, it showed by brief interaction but the interaction was at least there to be had.  ME3 lost a lot of that and it made the story halting at times, or flat out empty and hollow in others.  ME3 had more leeway as well in that it built off of so much pre-established material that was in ME1, which another poster brought out.  This was also in my review.  

Modifié par MrHibachi, 01 avril 2012 - 04:04 .

[txgoldrush]

Heather Cline wrote...

gold rush I am going to come back for one last rebuttal because I'm a glutton for punishment. Your original argument was that ME1 was rushed and is worse than ME3 based in the bugs and many issues.

That is your original argument. You are now trying to switch your argument to base it off of character classes, character development and interaction.

Sorry but you are not allowed to do that to defend your failing argument. Either stick with the argument you first presented or capitulate. In a court of law if you cannot keep to your original argument you would have been told by the judge you lost your case and therefore using any other kind of argument outside of the original argument would not be allowed.

As such I have pointed out that within the basis of your original argument that ME1 is clearly the superior game.

I thus conclude that your new argument is not pertinent to the original argument I debunked with my facts. Switching to another topic to try and support your original argument does not fly with me and nor would it fly in a court of law.

So I hope you enjoyed the argument as much as I did. I know I enjoyed winning it.

Have a nice evening.

and yet I haven;t switched topics.....I have said again and again, the gameplay elements and the graphics, things were rushed....games stuck in limbo with long development times tend to actually come out rushed, plain and simple. Look at Ultima IX, it was clearly rushed, but it was 5 years since VIII and it was stuck in development hell. Hell IX was the biggest gap from the predecessor in the entire series..and yet, it was almost unplayable at launch. It is still a buggy mess to this day.

There is no doubt that Microsoft did rush ME1 out to meet the holidays..the game clearly looks unfinished.

[Bleachrude]

Character interaction in ME1 was stronger than ME2?

Er, definitely disagree with that...ME3 squad interaction between mission, during missions was definitely stronger than ME1.

The fact that they would actually comment about missions (even the side missions), the fact that the crew interact with each other outside of squad banter

What exactly are you comparing the two?

[avantoreon]

With regard to the original topic, I think that Mass Effect 1 was in some ways a lot more ambitious than 2 and 3. ME1 had a whole "open world" aspect with landing on planets in the Mako rover that was rather underdeveloped. Even though all the side missions reused the same three dungeons, and the Mako handled like a drunken rhinoceros, I actually kind of liked that exploration element to ME1. It's too bad there wasn't a good way to keep that going in 2 or 3.