340 réponses à ce sujet

[Grasich]

ME1 doesn't feel rushed, it just feels like the developers weren't used to the tools they had.

[Iwillbeback]

The thread is funny.
Some idiot trying to justify the piece of garbage game we got compared to one the best game of its time.
After Mass effect 2 the standard was raised, Mass effect 3 didn't reach that standard therefore it is worse.

[Pallid]

stcalvin13 wrote...

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

/thread

[txgoldrush]

NurseMack wrote...

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.

Just because they are experiementing with technology or have a long development times doesn't mean it can't be rushed...in fact it can easily be rushed. Why? Because of the feeling of taking too long and the need to rush the game out the door. Hell Alan Wake was in development for too long, but what do you know, the game feels rushed out the door with promises broken and much of th egame missing, In fact it was supposed to be more open...its not. The first ME game was clearly rushed....because they did not pay attention to gameplay balance and world building before release. They let a backwards difficulty curve in as well, how is that not rushed? Had they took the time to properly balance the game, it would have been far better. Tech I can say, maybe they didn't master it, but gameplay is a different story. It simply would have been better to take a couple extra months to improve on it before release.The game was a good start but has too many problems.

Explaning the universe is one thing, using the characters instead of the plot to do so is another. Add to the fact that Bioware games of old have poor character development and it was the next game to be saddled with it. There were so many ways they could have had the characters be involved with the plot than be seperate from it except for recruiment and maybe Virmire. There is clearly a problem with ME1 when two brand new characters in ME3 have far better character development than the whole crew of ME1, along with other new crew members such as Cortez and Traynor. Really only Wrex had any major character development in ME1, everybody else was static.

ME1 failed at connecting characters with its plot, and also ME1's plot did not know how to find the correct pacing until the end. This is what happens when the whole plot is one big chase. Also very poor side quest to main quest intergration, where the side quests do not connect to the plot either thematically or mechanically. This is actually worse than Jade Empire, which side quests connected to the main theme of that game.

Take away the ending and ME3 simply has a better plot....its far better paced, the characters participate in the plot, the story is more natural, the universe has a better sense of change (look at the Citadel after the Tuchanka mission), the protagonist feels what happens in the plot better, etc. Hell side quests disappear and affect you if you take too long to complete them...an urgency ME1 lacks, Cerebrus doesn't wait for you to come to Grissom Academy forever, but Saren sure as hell waits for you to mine minerals with the moon buggy.

The plot of ME1 never really affected anyone outside of Wrex and maybe the Virmire survivor. Liara doesn't seem to troubled losing her mother (unlike Thessia in ME3) In ME3, the  plot afffects everybody. ME1 is not excused for poor use of characters and lack of character development despite the fact that it was introducing us to the universe. Then along comes DAO and did it EVEN WORSE. Many many starter works involve the characters in the plot....far better than ME1.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 01 avril 2012 - 08:28 .

[Vasparian]

OP is a troll. Why are people feeding the troll?

[NurseMack]

Vasparian wrote...

OP is a troll. Why are people feeding the troll?

Yep. Whatever, he can babble all he likes. I have mine opinion, he has his opinion. My last post and then we can watch how this topic keeps going back pages.

[Harorrd]

ME1 was in the longest time in development,

[simo2003]

Interesting. ME1 had its flaws, but I'm pretty certain that a lot of people won't agree on whether they were game-breaking or indeed if they were flaws. As an example, I actually liked the Mako. With a bit of fine-tuning, I felt it could have returned in ME2. The texture pop-in was irritating.

However, to say all the characters were walking codex entries is a gross over simplification and a sweeping generalisation at best. I'm not saying that the characters in ME1 are better written, but the story sure is. In terms of story, ME1's was top notch sci-fi.

Now, ME3? GREAT story and well written characters that are, as Txgoldrush says, more natural feeling. However, the ENDING does not do the game, let alone the series, justice.

The ending is the point we're working to (obviously). It's the culmination of the series. Bioware did a lot of things right, but for many people, they did not get the ending right. I would argue that if ANY part of the series needed to satisfy everyone, it would have to be the ending!

Fine, ME1 wasn't perfect. But at least it preserved narrative cohesion. ME3? Do we really have to drag out all those plot holes? 99% of the game is amazing, utterly fantastic, but those final ten minutes still leave a bad taste in my mouth. And where does the game finish? At that very point. THAT is why the ending needed to be right; we as players wanted closure, but we didn't get it. Instead, we got a completely contrived antagonist (Starchild) who hasn't been seen in the whole series. Where the hell was Harbinger? As I said, ME1's plot and ending made sense. On the other hand, the Starchild made EVERYTHING you achieved absolutely pointless. And if indoctrination theory is correct, it was poorly executed as a plot device.

I still can't understand Casey Hudson's (I think it was his, anyway) statement about how the series was ALWAYS building up to Shepard making the ultimate sacrifice. At no point was this ever a foregone conclusion. Player choice was always a present theme though! And where was that in the final part of the game? Oh yes, here: You can pick from three varying degrees of failure.

I'm not saying I don't want a sad ending - Shepard sacrificing himself for the good of everyone else. But in a ROLEPLAYING game, I would have liked for my hard work to be recognised. My Shepard was working hard to preserve galactic civilisation the whole time, and I was actually looking forward to kicking the Reapers back into dark space hard, if not crushing them outright. The issue of whether my Shepard survived or not was irrelevant. ME2 did this a LOT better than ME3 - the threat of failure was a real option, but you could still 'win'. Sure, it was suggested that the Reapers were unbeatable, but I'm not sure that I would have bothered to fight them, knowing what I know now about the endings. There was always hope (another theme in the story), and in many players' opinions, that wasn't recognised in the ending to ME3. If I were to play the series from start to finish, would I agonise over whether to save Kaiden or Ashley? Nope. Would I bother with companions' loyalty quests in ME2? No - what's the point? They're all dead in most endings of ME3. Would I bother to help cure the Genophage? No. Would I resolve the conflict between the Quarians and the Geth? No. I'll kill the Geth, because they're screwed whichever current ending you pick. The endings do away with any hope I had that things will be better after I've made my 'sacrifice'.

In short, I'm not disagreeing with the OP per se. ME1 was less than perfect in many regards, and Bioware undoubtedly learned lessons and improved their implementation of subsequent games, in terms of the technology and the story. What I am saying is that the ending to ME3, as the denouement of the whole series, should have been about a culmination of your choices to date, with a greater range of success and failure.

[simo2003]

txgoldrush wrote...

Take away the ending and ME3 simply has a better plot.

That's the problem, right there.

[Annora]

I remember how people ridiculed the first Mass Effect for its many bugs and cliche pop sci-fi story. They also hated the Mako, elevators, the side-quests, and the combat.

Along comes Mass Effect 2, the combat was much improved, and the graphics got a definite boost. Most of what was "bad" about 1 was fixed in 2, but people now said it was too dumbed down, too far in the shooter category and lost its RPG-ness. Less customization, but more companions, more dialogue, and more romances. Also, the ending. I can't even begin to guess how many threads were made about how stupid they felt the ending was. "LOLTERMINATOR." People started calling Mass Effect 1 the best of the series.

Mass Effect 3 comes along, further improves on the combat and adds a fun multiplayer mode. They take out a lot of the dialogue wheel interactions, but they put in much more robust customization options. A lot more conversations with your romance, graphics were polished, and a lot of cool, obscure, and tear-jerker moments. However, people raged about the ending being the worst thing that's ever happened in their lives (if only we could all be so lucky), cue massive ****storm. Both Mass Effect 1 and 2 now held up as examples of excellence.

People have short memories and rose-tinted glasses.

Modifié par Anastassia, 01 avril 2012 - 09:35 .

[Xenbus]

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.

This I literally finished a play through of ME1 like 2 hours ago again.

I enjoyed it far more then I enjoy replaying 2, and I can't replay 3 again I tried I can't get off Mars, it just isn't fun.

I actually liked the RPG style combat way more in ME1, the better character customization also. I like how in ME1 depending on your class you could not even have to use cover if you went like the shocktrooper route for the most part.

No matter what you choose as a class in ME2 and ME3 you have to sit behind cover, pop up and cast abilities or shoot basically. It turns into run to chest high wall, take cover shoot a little or use an ability sit behind wall for a few seconds rinse repeat. You didn't have to do that in ME1, some parts it was easier, some parts you need to run away and fire because something was charging you really fast. Comabt was much more dynamic then sit behind wall and shoot ocasionally.

I like choice in RPG's its the reason I play them over shooters. If I wanted to do nothing combat wise but sit behind chest high walls and pop up to shoot I would play games like Gears of War, where that is the entire point.

I also liked in 1 the ability to customize your compansions armor and skills to a much larger degree then you got in 2 or 3. I don't get why the industry thinks that the only good combat with guns nowadays is chest high walls, we used to get games that did all kinds of things combat wise with guns, now though every title that uses them has to make use of chest high walls to hide behind.

[Xenbus]

Anastassia wrote...

I remember how people ridiculed the first Mass Effect for its many bugs and cliche pop sci-fi story. They also hated the Mako, elevators, the side-quests, and the combat.

Along comes Mass Effect 2, the combat was much improved, and the graphics got a definite boost. Most of what was "bad" about 1 was fixed in 2, but people now said it was too dumbed down, too far in the shooter category and lost its RPG-ness. Less customization, but more companions, more dialogue, and more romances. Also, the ending. I can't even begin to guess how many threads were made about how stupid they felt the ending was. "LOLTERMINATOR." People started calling Mass Effect 1 the best of the series.

Mass Effect 3 comes along, further improves on the combat and adds a fun multiplayer mode. They take out a lot of the dialogue wheel interactions, but they put in much more robust customization options. A lot more conversations with your romance, graphics were polished, and a lot of cool, obscure, and tear-jerker moments. However, people raged about the ending being the worst thing that's ever happened in their lives (if only we could all be so lucky), cue massive ****storm. Both Mass Effect 1 and 2 now held up as examples of excellence.

People have short memories and rose-tinted glasses.

I enjoyed the planet sections with the mako in 1, I really did and if they had fine tuned the driving physics or if we got the vechile we got in the FireWalker missions of 2, I would have loved to be able to go down to planets to explore and such.

I hated planet scanning in 2, I hated the lack of character skills, the subdivision of the classes, that excluded certain biotic build types, the lack of companion armor and weapon customization as well as skills. They made it far less RPG like and way more shooter like.

I don't buy great story RPG's for being like a thousand other shooters out there. If I wanted to play a shooter like Call of Duty, I would play Call of Duty.

As for graphical upgrades, we will almost always get them from game to game because of the technology of the time improves and becomes cheaper. Comparing games that are years apart from each other graphically is stupid, they will always look better, because better technology got cheaper, and processing got better so the game can be more CPU resource heavy.

I think ME1 had some flow issues, but I disagree that ME2 made them all superior. I think we lost alot for what little we gained in ME2 combat wise, ditto in ME3, we lost alot of character interaction that was interesting, at the cost of NPC's being able to move around the ship and tlak to each other. They rarely talked to us, they talked at us, and we had to easedrop to get all the side quests, instead of someone addressing us and tlaking to us like the other 2 games.

The more things are talked at you about, or specifically in ME3 where you have to stop playing the game to listen to a side dialogue you can't be involed in to get a quest, to help a specific person or peoples is a terrible design move. It removes you from the story, and makes you not be playing the game to advance in it. I don't want my games ot make me passive to help random characters in the game, they should make me care about there problem. I shouldn't have to stop touching the controller and interacting with the game to be able to help them with there pressing problems. They should engage me like they did in 1 and 2 rather then me having to engage them by doing nothing for 30 seconds to a minute.

[Annora]

Xenbus wrote...

I don't buy great story RPG's for being like a thousand other shooters out there. If I wanted to play a shooter like Call of Duty, I would play Call of Duty.

That's a silly sentiment to have, though. Mass Effect was made as a shooter, but they had no idea how to make that shooting any good in the first game. The combat was awful. Really awful. Like, absolutely atrocious.

I never understood the people who complained about the combat getting tighter.

[ShinAnubisXIII]

ME1 > ME2 & ME3 in every way, shape and form.

/my opinion

Modifié par Shin-Anubis, 01 avril 2012 - 10:25 .

[Tony208]

The gameplay and combat isn't everything. Sure it was kind of awful in ME1 and sometimes a nuisance but did you enjoy the game any less?

Look at ME3 and please tell me you'd sacrifice gameplay for a better story, I know I would.

[Arcadian Legend]

Haristo wrote...

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

Nuts & Bolts.

*shudders*

[CroGamer002]

jreezy wrote...

Harorrd wrote...

ME1 was in the longest time in development,

Yeah. About 4 years from pre-production to release I think.

And oh boy does it sucks as a game alone.

[Aulis Vaara]

txgoldrush wrote...

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

The last few days I met some new people from different countries and guess what? In order to find out more about their culture I had to actually talk to them about it.

And RPGs have always done this, it's not a bad thing. The squadmates' character still bled through, we still had a good idea of who they were.

Anastassia wrote...

A lot more conversations with your romance, graphics were polished,

Did you somehow get a better game than me?

[Annora]

Tony208 wrote...

The gameplay and combat isn't everything. Sure it was kind of awful in ME1 and sometimes a nuisance but did you enjoy the game any less?

Look at ME3 and please tell me you'd sacrifice gameplay for a better story, I know I would.

No. I liked more of ME2 and 3's stories than I did ME1. Given that I've now played the first game 13 times, I've had a lot of time to reflect on that game's flaws, of which their were many. Wooden voice acting, cliche dialogue, nonsensical and boring romances, plot holes(!), poor combat mechanics, texture pop-in bug, Garrus and Saren's broken face textures, incredibly annoying Mako mechanics and noises (*TCH* EVERY FIVE SECONDS), and much more.

You know what I liked about ME1? Party banter in the elevators, Asari Consort sex, and the gateway to a sci-fi universe I fell in love with. The combat was always mildly annoying to me, but I enjoyed the story for the most part. However, Mass Effect 2 got me invested in the characters, and Mass Effect 3 gave me a satisfying conclusion to my relationships and Shepard.

[Ville L]

Nope, ME3 is rushed as hell, Me1 has better sidequests, more of them and they aren't just scanning, Intresting characters. story is lot better. But IMO ME2 is best ME game there is, everything in that is IMO better than in ME1 and ME3

[Skyhawk02]

I agree with the comment about ME1 characters seeming like talking codex entries, not all of them were like that, but definitely Tali and Liara to a lesser extent. The dialogue in ME3 feels so much more fluid and natural.

[Aeowyn]

Mesina2 wrote...

jreezy wrote...

Harorrd wrote...

ME1 was in the longest time in development,

Yeah. About 4 years from pre-production to release I think.

And oh boy does it sucks as a game alone.

Not really.

[Hogge87]

ME1 was a massive undertaking and to be honest, in most ways it still holds up.
When developing ME2 and ME3, Bioware had a foundation to stand on. They had the basic programming done. So when making the sequels, they could focus on fixing flaws.