340 réponses à ce sujet

[MasterKiller64]

You do realize that ME1 is not a 360 exclusive? It also released on PC.

[Star fury]

Bashing one thing in order to defend another one isn't a sound strategy.
ME1 is the best game in the series. It has big flaws for sure, but still better than both sequels.

[CSunkyst]

I would GLADLY trade in ME3's slick gameplay for all of ME1's horrid inventory system, cookie cutter side mission bases, clunky shooter gameplay, weak AI, having to hear "Enemies everywhere" once ever four seconds, and all of ME1's various technical/graphical limitations in exchange for a resolution that was even HALF as emotionally satisfying as ME1's ending was.

Yeah, I'd take that trade in a heartbeat just in order to not feel like an empty used shell of a fan who was sucker punched in the gut at the end of ME3.

This is why "2/10" user reviews of ME3 are perfectly valid and not simply "review bombing" Most of the long time fans came for the story, and despite everything else the game did right, the single most important part of the experience failed miserably.  

Modifié par CSunkyst, 01 avril 2012 - 04:14 .

[txgoldrush]

MrHibachi wrote...

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 server 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.  

Nowhere does the story halt in ME3...and really the story halts constantly in ME1...look at Feros..it was filler. I wonder why it was left out of the Genesis comic completely. The pacing was off in ME1, not so in ME3. Nevermind the fact that I have already told you, there are MORE conversations in ME3, MORE than ME1, including the Virmire Survivor when he or she is NOT in the party. Hell, Javik has more conversation moments than most ME1 characters. FACT. Nevermind the fact that they are forced into some missions...like Liara, Garrus, Tali, and hell EDI. This shows wonders for character development. Hell, the Liara Javik friendship develops throughout the game, without player input.

The characters were simply divorced from the plot in ME1 except for Virmire and their introduction...and really, the ASshley/Kaiden thing was also forced...why not anyone?

There was really no reason that Tali and Garrus were in the game, they added almost nothing after introduction. They ere just there.

Nevermind that the characters in ME1 didn't really develop except for Wrex. Kaiden is the same character he was when you first meet him, so is Ashley, so is Tali, somewhat the case for Garrus, even Liara doesn't really develop. It is ME2 and ME3 that shows more character development and character participation in the plot.

And really Bioware sucks at character development until recently. Its because maybe they were using the characters more as codex entries than actual story participants. Look at KOTOR compared to its sequel. The characters in its sequel played an ACTIVE role in the plot, with some sections, being PLAYABLE, including HK47 whose choice decides the end, not the Jedi PC. KOTOR I, not so much....

Character interactivity is all great an all, but stories need character development....and ME1 lacks this.

[txgoldrush]

MasterKiller64 wrote...

You do realize that ME1 is not a 360 exclusive? It also released on PC.

It was released first on 360 as an exclusive....months before PC release.

[Gmandam]

They are codex entries for a reason and they do allow character development later on and still allow character exposition early on. There is no character development because it doesn't make sense after only knowing them for a few months and not really helping them out in any significant way.

[thefallen2far]

I feel like Mass Effect is like the Godfather trilogy. People can argue 1 and 2 as the best because each has their own merits... 2 improved on the original, but 1 is a great stand alone. 3 is... well.... it's 3.

[txgoldrush]

Gmandam wrote...

They are codex entries for a reason and they do allow character development later on and still allow character exposition early on. There is no character development because it doesn't make sense after only knowing them for a few months and not really helping them out in any significant way.

There are far better ways to do character exposition without turning them into talking codexes...fully fleshed recuitment missions like an ME2 and DA2 are one.....or do how TW2 introduced them.....hell, look how they introduced either Stennis or Henselt, by MAKING THEM PLAYABLE!!!!!!

[IdTheDemon]

The first game can sometimes be the worst technical wise, especially when working on a new console for the first time. Just compare GTA III to San Andreas.

Look at how they improved Mass Effect 2 by having 2 discs instead of one. While some sacrifices were made (Mainly removing the recruitment of Tali, Thane, Legion and Samara/Morinth before Horizon), the graphics were insanely superior, and we were given more dialogue, more variety in missions and more variety in environments.

[Gorfimus]

Some of the gameplay elements aren't indicative of ME1 being rushed. It was more Bioware just sucking at that stuff back then. Plus some of the aspects were net new to them, like the combat mechanics. They took feedback to heart and really improved upon gameplay elements in ME2 and ME3.

[DukeOfNukes]

I already had this argument with you, TX. Mass Effect 1 wasn't "rushed"...it was just full of poor design decisions, and they were new to the genre and at the point, even the best games on the Unreal Engine had severe texture pop-in.

The "cookie cutter" dungeons is your best point, but it's still not a very good one. Sure, it was a cost/time cutting measure, but the resources were better put elsewhere. Frankly, they never really bugged me all that much.

[Gmandam]

txgoldrush wrote...

Gmandam wrote...

They are codex entries for a reason and they do allow character development later on and still allow character exposition early on. There is no character development because it doesn't make sense after only knowing them for a few months and not really helping them out in any significant way.

There are far better ways to do character exposition without turning them into talking codexes...fully fleshed recuitment missions like an ME2 and DA2 are one.....or do how TW2 introduced them.....hell, look how they introduced either Stennis or Henselt, by MAKING THEM PLAYABLE!!!!!!

But how is the player meant to understand thier motives for helping with out more information. Tali offers to help because her people are prosocuted for being space vagrants. She also wants to help because her life as a quarian has taught her that if you all pull together you survive.

With out more information she has no purpose in the game beyond the data file. With more exposition we see a person who is attempting to do what is right and trying to show the galaxy that the quarian people have more to offer than just the geth accident.

Loyalty missions were not right for me1.There was no way to shoehorn that into the plot of me1 because it was meant to be a race against time and they all knew that. In me2 it was about stopping the collectors by building the best squad you could and making them as focused as you could. ergo loyalty missions are more appropriet.

Modifié par Gmandam, 01 avril 2012 - 04:47 .

[casadechrisso]

I don't believe either was rushed - being rushed would be a too simple excuse, I believe Bioware did certain things either on purpose or simply screwed up. I'm pretty sure Bioware always thought the endings are perfectly fine until fans started complaining. And copy/paste environments in ME1 and DA2 were probably a matter of "oh, it works just fine, I don't see why we need more if we can save ressources". That's not to say DA2 wasn't rushed - it certainly was, but I don't see the same in ME3 or ME1, just different priorities.

[txgoldrush]

Gmandam wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Gmandam wrote...

They are codex entries for a reason and they do allow character development later on and still allow character exposition early on. There is no character development because it doesn't make sense after only knowing them for a few months and not really helping them out in any significant way.

There are far better ways to do character exposition without turning them into talking codexes...fully fleshed recuitment missions like an ME2 and DA2 are one.....or do how TW2 introduced them.....hell, look how they introduced either Stennis or Henselt, by MAKING THEM PLAYABLE!!!!!!

But how is the player meant to understand thier motives for helping with out more information. Tali offers to help because her people are prosocuted for being space vagrants. She also wants to help because her life as a quarian has taught her that if you all pull together you survive.

With out more information she has no purpose in the game beyond the data file. With more exposition we see a person who is attempting to do what is right and trying to show the galaxy that the quarian people have more to offer than just the geth accident.

There was no way to shoehorn that into the plot of me1 because it was meant to be a race against time. In me2 it was about stopping the reapers by building the best squad you could and making them as focused as you could. ergo loyalty missions are more appropriet.

Why can't she expalin this at the point of recruitment? Why couldn't she get more involved in the plot? Why was her quest really bare bones instead of a more fully fleshed out quest? Really unlike Wrex and Garrus, her quest was just getting an item.

She had no character development, no plot particpation past recruitment, and really what a blown oppurtunity to not include the quarian people in a plot line where you fight mostly geth.

Bioware in the past just plainly were bad at including characters other than the dueteragonist, like a Bastila, and tritagonist, like a Carth, in the plot and giving them a role in the plot instead of just being there for the sake of color.

[DarthSyphilis59]

Are you insane? Mass Effect 1 is the game that made us all fans! The last 5 minutes of ME 3 is what people are really upset with. Not Mass Effect 1! Give me a break!

[bboynexus]

Yeah. ME1 hasn't aged very well.

[txgoldrush]

DarthSyphilis59 wrote...

Are you insane? Mass Effect 1 is the game that made us all fans! The last 5 minutes of ME 3 is what people are really upset with. Not Mass Effect 1! Give me a break!

And the last 5 minutes can be fixed...where was the fix to all of ME1's problems?

[DiE231]

Problem is they failed were it mattered most, the most critical moment of the entire franchise, the battle everyone knew would eventually take place since ME1, the final stand of the galaxy against the Reapers turned out to be one of the worst missions EVER.


ME3 as a whole is very well polished, its true, however, the final arc was rushed so bad it hurts, war assets being useless, no choices to be made, and the two highpoints of the mission(AA GUN and the missile battery) are horde mode(survive X waves and press the button)


Honestly, the ending doesn't bother me that much, what really pisses me off is that i was expecting Priority: Earth to play like the suicide mission but on gigasteroids, and it wasn't even close, not even remotely close.

[Saremei]

ME1 was by far the absolute best in the series for portraying a well thought out, realistic sci-fi story. I've replayed every mass effect game. I'm currently on my way through ME1 AGAIN. I love every detail about that game. Just the simple fact that hostile environmental conditions in ME1 don't have people putting on ridiculous breather masks, but instead fully sealed helmets is a humongous boost for realism and immersion over the following games.

Yes ME2 introduces some better biotic powers, but it implements needless restrictions on them. It also introduced thermal clips, which do nothing but kick established lore and superior tech out the window for the less high tech or antiquated feel of essentially having ammo for no logical reason. As for the story contained within? It's good, but it was ultimately just a sidestory. It serves to introduce us to the Illusive man and the ways of cerberus and not a lot else.

ME3 fixed some of ME2's mechanics and is easily the best to play and it has a fantastic story, but it has many inconsistencies and the whole ending situation. Better than 2, but the story and overall feel I think still takes a backseat to ME1.

[LaurenShepard-N7]

ME1 had flaws but I still think it was the best game in the series. I didn't even start playing ME long enough ago to have nostalgia goggles.

[Gmandam]

Why would she explain this at point of recruitment? She assumes that you have a basic knowledge of quarians and  is surprised that you want to learn more about her people and not what the council and other people have perpetuated as punishment for the geth.

There is no plot involvement for characters (baring liara) because none of it is personally relevant to them and they never point out major issues in their lives until asked about them. Garrus joins because he knows that saren is guilty but can't prove it. Liara joins because she finds Shepard's experience with the prothians interesting. Tali joins because she knows that the geth wouldn't be outside the vail without some major reason.The two marines join out of loyalty. Wrex joins because he knows when someone tells the shadow broker to go away they are doing something really shady.

They never join because there is a major threat to them or because they need shepard's help but because events(and suspsicions)compel them to join. They stay because they realize the stakes at the end of the game.

It is mentioned in game that the quarians don't know much more about the geth beyond what everyone else does.

Tali's data file comes from her own natural abilities and the fact that tech skills are needed in a environment that she lived in.

Edited for grammer mistakes.

Modifié par Gmandam, 01 avril 2012 - 05:20 .

[shnellegaming]

I felt on top of the world when I finished ME1 and every time I finished ME1.  I played that game all the way through probably 20 times.  Thats hundreds of hours of gameplay.  This game I could hardly stomach past one play through so yeah for me ME1 was better.

[stcalvin13]

Don't confused "most rushed" with "most troubled." ME1 has problems, but they weren't due to lack of time.

[trackboy186]

txgoldrush wrote...

DarthSyphilis59 wrote...

Are you insane? Mass Effect 1 is the game that made us all fans! The last 5 minutes of ME 3 is what people are really upset with. Not Mass Effect 1! Give me a break!

And the last 5 minutes can be fixed...where was the fix to all of ME1's problems?

That would be Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3.

Edit:

Or at least that was what they attempted anyway. My opinion is that Mass Effect is the best of the three and I've played it since beating Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par trackboy186, 01 avril 2012 - 05:54 .

[NurseMack]

When new technology is being introduced, first games of a series are basically prototyping it. Look at Gears of War, they were mainly prototyping the cover system. Look at the Force Unleashed, they were prototyping the Force mechanics. With the sequels, they build upon the gameplay mechanics. That's only natural. You could look at any game series and see that. Using the argument that the old gameplay sucks compared to the newest one isn't fair.

As for story and character interaction, that's all a matter of opinion. You're trying to force your opinion onto everyone else. Granted, some Mass Effect 1 lovers are attempting to do the same. That does not make either group right.

In my personal opinion, Mass Effect 1 was the greatest one for me. I never found probing your crew mates for information on certain topics to be a nuisance. I had no problem with the combat system and to this day, Mass Effect 1 is the one I've replayed the most (Around 30 times).

Mass Effect 3 character interactions may be more natural, but let me ask you this txgoldrush. Would you stone an author for using his or hers first book in the series to explain the universe to the reader? I would certainly hope not. Such things are necessary especially since Mass Effect is probably the biggest Sci-Fi universe of this generation.

Are there better ways to develop characters and the universe?  Maybe. I see this as a matter of preference. Some may prefer an "informative" approach while others may prefer something that feels "more natural" as you prefer.

Now onto the point of this topic that you believe Mass Effect 1 was rushed way more than Mass Effect 3. Let me state this simply: It was not. Mass Effect 1 was originally released onto the Xbox 360. The Xbox 360 was released at the end of 2005. Usually, development kits for a brand new game consoles go out to game developers 1.5-2 years before the console hits retail stores. That's why new game systems are accompanied by launch titles. Mass Effect was not a launch title, but as I said before, it's probably the biggest Sci-Fi universe of our time. Developing a whole universe takes time. How long Mass Effect was in devlopment is a matter of speculation since we were not on the team. Concerning Shepard, Mass Effect was always intended to be a triology, so you can argue that they had the basic framework going since 2003. But there is no way in hell Mass Effect was rushed considering that they were creating a universe and experimenting with new game technologies. The sequels...I'm not gonna touch whether or not they were rushed.