340 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

or maybe its because the side quests to a horrendous job tying into the main plot, nevermind the ridiciousliness of exploring backwater planets while you are CHASING Saren in a RACE AGAINST TIME...

Talking codex is a bad way of using characters, a symptom of not bothering to explain things in the plot.

Really either someone like Tali shouldn't have been in ME1, or the Migrant Fleet should have been PART of ME1.

[Tovanus]

The seeds of the plot hole failures at the end of ME 3 were sown when they decided to release ME 1 without having any plan in place for how to handle that story. Then again, I'm not sure I can really call that a result of "rushing." They could have many extra months and they still probably wouldn't have taken the time to plan for that. It's like they completely ignored that need for a long-term plan in the first one, then they continued to ignore it in the second one, and finally we see the results of ignoring the need for a plan in the third one.

I think in terms of getting what they wanted to get into the game, they were probably not rushed in ME 1. In ME 3, I think the "rush" impacted some things (such as maybe not getting to see war assets used in the final battle). In terms of the poor plot resolution, I think the rush had nothing to do with it. It was just Bioware's failure to plan, writers who had written themselves into a corner, and an odd sense of comfort with using terrible plot devices to get themselves out.

[RenownedRyan]

You are treating opinions as facts. The texture pop in in Mass Effect is no more egregious than the lack of character face importing in Mass Effect 3.

[Joolazoo]

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.

Or it's more natural because we actually know stuff about her from the first game so we know what she's talking about and can better flesh out her character. This is like blaming the first installment of a book series for spending half the time explaining the setting of the story.

[txgoldrush]

Orkboy wrote...

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.

Any RPG maker with half a brain realizes that the story itself is far more important than the notion of choice.

[Joolazoo]

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

or maybe its because the side quests to a horrendous job tying into the main plot, nevermind the ridiciousliness of exploring backwater planets while you are CHASING Saren in a RACE AGAINST TIME...

Talking codex is a bad way of using characters, a symptom of not bothering to explain things in the plot.

Really either someone like Tali shouldn't have been in ME1, or the Migrant Fleet should have been PART of ME1.

How is that any more ridiculous than you going to save some cerberus scientists while a planet is getting burned to the ground by the reapers. Almost none of the side missions in ME3 make any logical sense when you compare their value to as if you were actually just doing your job and getting the allies you needed. I'm sure saving Samara in the asari sanctuary was an A priority while half the galaxy is getting blown up. You are picking and choosing the issues with these games.

[SilentPhenomed]

There was a lot more story and dialogue in ME1 I THINK....mainly because that introduces to what Mass Effect and the characters in it are. By ME2 and ME3, you don't need that many story and dialogue choices.

[XRelakX]

BatmanPWNS wrote...

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

Now now..when you have a product and you want to sell you wont say is crap do you?

Ofc they will clal it the best in the series hell theyre the makers they have to sell the product lol.

[Novate]

ME 1 established the universe, it introduces all the different races, created back stories to them therefore ME 1 wasn't rushed, there is just too much information given in one single game.

ME 2 explored the Darker side of the ME universe, while ME 1 introduces the races, ME 2 build on it and gives those races their soul.

ME 3 feels rushed because it was suppose to tight everything back, give us an conclusion, but instead it tries too hard and failed to bring the last few minutes home.

It shouldn't have ended with ME 3, shepard's story should have been continued to 4 and 5. Giving the story more time to finish and tight up all loose ends.
It feels rushed because the story was urgency and through Urgency, the story feels incomplete.

[txgoldrush]

Joolazoo wrote...

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.

Or it's more natural because we actually know stuff about her from the first game so we know what she's talking about and can better flesh out her character. This is like blaming the first installment of a book series for spending half the time explaining the setting of the story.

No, even new characters need to be introduced organically and not become talking codex entries.

Was Varric in DA2 a talking codex? Hell no. You learn about him through the plot. And he was a NEW character.

[weltraumhamster89]

Ticondurus wrote...

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

Yes Sir! ME1 is about 5 times better than ME3.. and bigger. And deeper. And ten times more roleplay-ish.

[ahandsomeshark]

Deflagratio wrote...

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.

this

[Vigil_N7]

The only part of ME3 that was feasibly rushed was the ending.

Half the people holding the line are doing themselves no credit when they constantly over-exaggerate how bad the endings were. Sure, show your dissatisfaction by all means but some of these people holding the line only make themselves look like fanatic idiots by spouting out rubbish such as "The endings make the whole game bad", attacking anyone that actually had a semblance of satisfaction with the endings or doing other ridiculous things such as boycotting a game you've already paid for because you don't like the ending.

ME3 isn't perfect but it is a hell of a lot better than what some of the posters on this board give it credit for.

[Joolazoo]

txgoldrush wrote...

Joolazoo wrote...

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.

Or it's more natural because we actually know stuff about her from the first game so we know what she's talking about and can better flesh out her character. This is like blaming the first installment of a book series for spending half the time explaining the setting of the story.

No, even new characters need to be introduced organically and not become talking codex entries.

Was Varric in DA2 a talking codex? Hell no. You learn about him through the plot. And he was a NEW character.

 Was Varric an alien of whom we knew absolutely nothing about his culture before DA2? No. That's not a fair comparison at all.

[lillitheris]

And still it looks like some are trying to use this as an argument for why ME3 supposedly wasn't bad. I don't get this at all.

[iamthedave3]

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

or maybe its because the side quests to a horrendous job tying into the main plot, nevermind the ridiciousliness of exploring backwater planets while you are CHASING Saren in a RACE AGAINST TIME...

Talking codex is a bad way of using characters, a symptom of not bothering to explain things in the plot.

Really either someone like Tali shouldn't have been in ME1, or the Migrant Fleet should have been PART of ME1.

So ME 3 benefits from the characterization in ME 1 and the universe explanations from previous entries? You don't say!

The side quests in ME 3 make no more sense, nor did they make sense in ME 2 if you think about it (yes, I'm sure the 1000 year old super-powered Justicar won't be able to concentrate in a battle unless I help her with her kid who she's been chasing for 400 years, and I'm sure the professional mercenary who's been doing this for a living and is eager to tell me all about it likewise won't be able to concentrate in a battle... you know, that thing he's been doing his entire life).

I'm replaying ME 1 right now and loving every second, stilted dialogue and all. I like it when my RPGs feel like RPGs.

[txgoldrush]

Joolazoo wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

or maybe its because the side quests to a horrendous job tying into the main plot, nevermind the ridiciousliness of exploring backwater planets while you are CHASING Saren in a RACE AGAINST TIME...

Talking codex is a bad way of using characters, a symptom of not bothering to explain things in the plot.

Really either someone like Tali shouldn't have been in ME1, or the Migrant Fleet should have been PART of ME1.

How is that any more ridiculous than you going to save some cerberus scientists while a planet is getting burned to the ground by the reapers. Almost none of the side missions in ME3 make any logical sense when you compare their value to as if you were actually just doing your job and getting the allies you needed. I'm sure saving Samara in the asari sanctuary was an A priority while half the galaxy is getting blown up. You are picking and choosing the issues with these games.

Nevermind the Ardat Yakshi mission was involving the Reapers making Banshees, far more relavant to th emain plot than finding ones dead squad in a planetary exploration mission in ME1, which had nothing to do at all with the plot.

Excuses excuses...face it, ME1 was rushed....the backwards difficulty curve and the porr gameplay balance and mechanics prove it. They did not test the game enough for exploits....

Modifié par txgoldrush, 31 mars 2012 - 08:08 .

[txgoldrush]

Joolazoo wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Joolazoo wrote...

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.

Or it's more natural because we actually know stuff about her from the first game so we know what she's talking about and can better flesh out her character. This is like blaming the first installment of a book series for spending half the time explaining the setting of the story.

No, even new characters need to be introduced organically and not become talking codex entries.

Was Varric in DA2 a talking codex? Hell no. You learn about him through the plot. And he was a NEW character.

 Was Varric an alien of whom we knew absolutely nothing about his culture before DA2? No. That's not a fair comparison at all.

Aveline? Fenris? Nevermind that Varric is a foil of dwarven culture, a surface dwarf.

Face it, even using new characters as talking codex entires is lazy.....look at The Witcher 2, they don't do this.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 31 mars 2012 - 08:07 .

[Sparse]

I'm currently replaying ME1 and on PC at least I'd say it was best of the three.

I agree the action isn't as good but that it because it was supposed to be a RPG rather than primarily an action game as ME3 is.

[txgoldrush]

iamthedave3 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

or maybe its because the side quests to a horrendous job tying into the main plot, nevermind the ridiciousliness of exploring backwater planets while you are CHASING Saren in a RACE AGAINST TIME...

Talking codex is a bad way of using characters, a symptom of not bothering to explain things in the plot.

Really either someone like Tali shouldn't have been in ME1, or the Migrant Fleet should have been PART of ME1.

So ME 3 benefits from the characterization in ME 1 and the universe explanations from previous entries? You don't say!

The side quests in ME 3 make no more sense, nor did they make sense in ME 2 if you think about it (yes, I'm sure the 1000 year old super-powered Justicar won't be able to concentrate in a battle unless I help her with her kid who she's been chasing for 400 years, and I'm sure the professional mercenary who's been doing this for a living and is eager to tell me all about it likewise won't be able to concentrate in a battle... you know, that thing he's been doing his entire life).

I'm replaying ME 1 right now and loving every second, stilted dialogue and all. I like it when my RPGs feel like RPGs.

Oh wait but they do, ME3's major sidequests are centered around actions of the main antagonists...the first games weren't.

Just because a game has RPG elements doesn't make it good.

[ImmovableMover]

I can't blame ME1 for having crappy combat/cover mechanics...I mean, before Gears of War came out there were no really decent TPS controls or mechanics...they were all pretty ****ty and ME1 was in development LONG before GoW1 came out.

Texture pop-in was an issue, and the framerate dipped a lot, but have you SEEN the ME1 graphics? They still look decent today. I introduced my friend to the Mass effect universe in January and he instantly commented on how good the game looks considering how old it is, I remember being blown away when I first saw it, it was easily the best looking game i'd seen and stayed that way for a while.

The inventory system and HUD was a mess, that's patently true (read this for all the gory details, a pretty interesting read)

A lot of the side quest's had copy/pasted/slightly altered "Dungeons" (or whatever the sci-fi version is), that is also true.

On the whole though, I agree, ME3 is my favourite in the franchise so far for gameplay and up until the ending the character interaction was amazing too. But ME1 is only a nose behind, despite its flaws because of its plot (for me) - The plot in ME1, with Saren and the discovery of the Reapers, is the best in the series.

And, in ME1 they really nailed the end. I mean I ****ing love the end of ME1, It's a brilliant climax, a REAL stand off with your nemesis that has hunted and hindered you throughout the game (both an intellectual battle and a physical one), a gigantic battle with an unbelievable evil raging on outside, getting to make quick decisions that will affect the galaxy...and of course being buried under rubble, looking to have sacrificed yourself for the greater good...until...OH SHI- SHEPARD'S ALIVE! And he's like "What? You were worried? Please; I'm commander ****ing Shepard."

Fists are pumped, and I am left feeling an immense sense of satisfaction and glory. ME2 didn't have that nearly as much, and ME3 should have had that in spades but failed even to top ME2...or even be workable.

[Joolazoo]

txgoldrush wrote...

Joolazoo wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

or maybe its because the side quests to a horrendous job tying into the main plot, nevermind the ridiciousliness of exploring backwater planets while you are CHASING Saren in a RACE AGAINST TIME...

Talking codex is a bad way of using characters, a symptom of not bothering to explain things in the plot.

Really either someone like Tali shouldn't have been in ME1, or the Migrant Fleet should have been PART of ME1.

How is that any more ridiculous than you going to save some cerberus scientists while a planet is getting burned to the ground by the reapers. Almost none of the side missions in ME3 make any logical sense when you compare their value to as if you were actually just doing your job and getting the allies you needed. I'm sure saving Samara in the asari sanctuary was an A priority while half the galaxy is getting blown up. You are picking and choosing the issues with these games.

Nevermind the Ardat Yakshi mission was involving the Reapers making Banshees, far more relavant to th emain plot than finding ones dead squad in a planetary exploration mission in ME1, which had nothing to do at all with the plot.

Excuses excuses...face it, ME1 was rushed....the backwards difficulty curve and the porr gameplay balance and mechanics prove it. They did not test the game enough for exploits....

you had no idea about the banshees when you were going there, and not to mention you saved them from making what, 2 more Banshees? Reallly worth it. You know that mission had absolutely nothing to do with the galactic war other than to give us a moment of "oh damn that's what they turn asari into". I'm not making excuses...I would much rather play ME3 than ME1 or ME2 currently, but that doesn't mean either of them were rushed. I also don't know what exploits you are talking about..becuase I never ran into any of them, unless you mean bugs.

I still maintain that the ME3 side missions are just as useless and don't give any compelling reason to do them outside of the fact you want to see your previous characters in action.

[Jaysh]

ME1 is the best.

[ahandsomeshark]

txgoldrush wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

or maybe its because the side quests to a horrendous job tying into the main plot, nevermind the ridiciousliness of exploring backwater planets while you are CHASING Saren in a RACE AGAINST TIME...

Talking codex is a bad way of using characters, a symptom of not bothering to explain things in the plot.

Really either someone like Tali shouldn't have been in ME1, or the Migrant Fleet should have been PART of ME1.

So ME 3 benefits from the characterization in ME 1 and the universe explanations from previous entries? You don't say!

The side quests in ME 3 make no more sense, nor did they make sense in ME 2 if you think about it (yes, I'm sure the 1000 year old super-powered Justicar won't be able to concentrate in a battle unless I help her with her kid who she's been chasing for 400 years, and I'm sure the professional mercenary who's been doing this for a living and is eager to tell me all about it likewise won't be able to concentrate in a battle... you know, that thing he's been doing his entire life).

I'm replaying ME 1 right now and loving every second, stilted dialogue and all. I like it when my RPGs feel like RPGs.

Oh wait but they do, ME3's major sidequests are centered around actions of the main antagonists...the first games weren't.

Just because a game has RPG elements doesn't make it good.

um, it would make it a good RPG.

[iamthedave3]

txgoldrush wrote...

Joolazoo wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

or maybe its because the side quests to a horrendous job tying into the main plot, nevermind the ridiciousliness of exploring backwater planets while you are CHASING Saren in a RACE AGAINST TIME...

Talking codex is a bad way of using characters, a symptom of not bothering to explain things in the plot.

Really either someone like Tali shouldn't have been in ME1, or the Migrant Fleet should have been PART of ME1.

How is that any more ridiculous than you going to save some cerberus scientists while a planet is getting burned to the ground by the reapers. Almost none of the side missions in ME3 make any logical sense when you compare their value to as if you were actually just doing your job and getting the allies you needed. I'm sure saving Samara in the asari sanctuary was an A priority while half the galaxy is getting blown up. You are picking and choosing the issues with these games.

Nevermind the Ardat Yakshi mission was involving the Reapers making Banshees, far more relavant to th emain plot than finding ones dead squad in a planetary exploration mission in ME1, which had nothing to do at all with the plot.

Excuses excuses...face it, ME1 was rushed....the backwards difficulty curve and the porr gameplay balance and mechanics prove it. They did not test the game enough for exploits....

That looked an awful lot like you making an excuse to me. The mission isn't sold as 'they're making ardat yakshis into Banshees' it was 'please check out this problem we're having. You know, because you've got nothing better to do or anything.'