340 réponses à ce sujet

[Pathero]

Laying into the character's in ME1 for being 'talking codex entries' is a tad harsh. Bioware created a HUGE universe to play in and needed to convay the information somehow. I could have just gone for the codex entries only, but having characters convay this information is more effective.

It was done well in a lot of cases. Having Garrus tell you about why he joined C-Sec and alluding to Turian philosophy is a good way to get the information to the player.

The biggest design gripe I had was the wretched big rooms. Rooms were made big and corridors long for no real reason, and quite often they were empty. (Going from the wards to C-Sec being a prime example). Whilst this might give the impression of size since it takes you ages to walk from A-B, it really just acts as a major time sink.

I actually miss the heat sinks from ME1. I thought it was a great gimick that worked well and forced the player to be tactical in fights as well as in the use of powers. The punishment for going nuts with the gun was to be left vulernable for an extended period of time. In ME2 and 3 this pressure is removed. I think the reload time is seconds. Apart from that the combat was better in ME2 and 3. I prefer 3 as they seemed to have lessed the 'funnel of death' effect the setup of most rooms gave.

I used to think that ME1's combat was horrible and clunky and when I started my new Femshep I thought the same. However, now I think the only clunky thing about it is the cover mechanic. The combat is completely different in ME1 compared to ME2/3. I quite like it TBH. It feels like a curious mix of real time combat and trun based (real time for pew pew, turn based for powers).

[ElementL09]

Gameplay wise, ME1 wasn't perfect, story wise, it was excellent.
Gameplay wise, ME3 was better then 2, but alittle clunky at times, story wise, it was great until the last 10 minutes.

[txgoldrush]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

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.

what if the RPG elements were used improperly?...think about it....

[iamthedave3]

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.

If the RPG elements are good then it might make it a good RPG, which ME 1 was and is why I like it. Neither ME 2 or ME 3 are a patch on it on that territory. ME 3 especially is an average third person shooter pretending to be an RPG. ME 2 is the transition between the two.

[Serp86]

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

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.

Oh come on the planets/buildings for sidequests all looked the same and driving the Mako up almost 180 degree mountains was annoying as hell. I just did a 100% complete ME1 run and an ME2 afterwards. ME2's sidemission were way less hmm stupid.


And to be honest the mainstory in ME1 was ALOT shorter then the one in both ME2 and ME3 . 

Modifié par Serp86, 31 mars 2012 - 08:21 .

[txgoldrush]

Pathero wrote...

Laying into the character's in ME1 for being 'talking codex entries' is a tad harsh. Bioware created a HUGE universe to play in and needed to convay the information somehow. I could have just gone for the codex entries only, but having characters convay this information is more effective.

It was done well in a lot of cases. Having Garrus tell you about why he joined C-Sec and alluding to Turian philosophy is a good way to get the information to the player.

The biggest design gripe I had was the wretched big rooms. Rooms were made big and corridors long for no real reason, and quite often they were empty. (Going from the wards to C-Sec being a prime example). Whilst this might give the impression of size since it takes you ages to walk from A-B, it really just acts as a major time sink.

I actually miss the heat sinks from ME1. I thought it was a great gimick that worked well and forced the player to be tactical in fights as well as in the use of powers. The punishment for going nuts with the gun was to be left vulernable for an extended period of time. In ME2 and 3 this pressure is removed. I think the reload time is seconds. Apart from that the combat was better in ME2 and 3. I prefer 3 as they seemed to have lessed the 'funnel of death' effect the setup of most rooms gave.

I used to think that ME1's combat was horrible and clunky and when I started my new Femshep I thought the same. However, now I think the only clunky thing about it is the cover mechanic. The combat is completely different in ME1 compared to ME2/3. I quite like it TBH. It feels like a curious mix of real time combat and trun based (real time for pew pew, turn based for powers).

No the combat sucked because of more than just the mechanics.....recruiting Liara should not be the toughest mission in the game....nevermind the awful gameplay balance with sickeningly overpowered abilities like immunity, bastion stasis, and all biotics in general. It was poorly thought out and rushed to where they made no attempt to balance the game. Hell, I can make an assault rifle never overheat. I can excuse some techinical porblems, but poor gameplay balance was an issue as big back then as it is now.

[Rip504]

...
Really? Lmao.
It was released in 07... A year after Oblivion,just think about it.
Story,idea,sidequest,just overall concept love & passion put into ME1 makes it the champion.
Yea did it have a few problems that were fixed in later games,while exploration(in space) was sacrificed. Story and integrity also sacrificed in ME2 & 3. ME3 has a lot more problems then just the ending. Maybe you could open your eyes and see that ME3's poor writing stretches far beyond the ending. It can be found all throughout ME2&3. And the combat difficulty skill,sucks in all 3 games. Organic Convos? Do you understand how many convos I walked away from in my first playthrough of ME3. I didn't even realize I was in convos, while standing there and pressing the A(X) button. Very few moments in ME3 were engaging and Squad convos seem poorly thought out IMO.

But that is just my opinion,so w.e.

[Vigil_N7]

What RPG elements did Mass Effect 1 have that the others lacked?

Getting different weapons/gear? For the most part utterly pointless, 3/4 of the stuff in that game I didn't use, its very easy to have 9999999 credits by the end of the game because most stuff got sold. Once you had the spectre gear you were laughing.

Traveling in the mako? It had its strengths and weaknesses. One of the more memorable mako journeys was on Luna, for obvious reasons. But the vehicle controls were sketchy and most of the planets were simply re-skinned. I'd say ME2 nailed the side missions best, as most of ME3's were simply scanning ones.

[SNascimento]

ME1 was the most rushed and the worst in the series.
.
Nonetheless, it was a fantastic game and I love it.

[txgoldrush]

iamthedave3 wrote...

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.

If the RPG elements are good then it might make it a good RPG, which ME 1 was and is why I like it. Neither ME 2 or ME 3 are a patch on it on that territory. ME 3 especially is an average third person shooter pretending to be an RPG. ME 2 is the transition between the two.

oh wiat the RPG elements in ME1 WEREN'T good...the atrocious inventory, the atrocious mod system, the horrifically unbalanced leveling system, the fact that you can be screwed playing a nuetral character, etc.

RPG elements done poorly.

[gnrfan228]

At least the story made sense. That's what matters most to me.

[DarkBladeX98]

wow bro. just wow.
ME1 was the first Mass Effect game mind you. A lot of the stuff they did was experimental, and these features received more polish/streamlining as the series progressed. Sure a lot of things were rough compared to how they are now, but it was their first attempt at something like this.
ME1 had great story and a great soundtrack, the gameplay was less than stellar, but I for one really really enjoyed the first game, the amount of exploration and weapon customization has never been better in the series.

[txgoldrush]

Rip504 wrote...

...
Really? Lmao.
It was released in 07... A year after Oblivion,just think about it.
Story,idea,sidequest,just overall concept love & passion put into ME1 makes it the champion.
Yea did it have a few problems that were fixed in later games,while exploration(in space) was sacrificed. Story and integrity also sacrificed in ME2 & 3. ME3 has a lot more problems then just the ending. Maybe you could open your eyes and see that ME3's poor writing stretches far beyond the ending. It can be found all throughout ME2&3. And the combat difficulty skill,sucks in all 3 games. Organic Convos? Do you understand how many convos I walked away from in my first playthrough of ME3. I didn't even realize I was in convos, while standing there and pressing the A(X) button. Very few moments in ME3 were engaging and Squad convos seem poorly thought out IMO.

But that is just my opinion,so w.e.

ME1's got worse writing, worse dialogue, worst character use, poor side quest intergration into the story...face it, the characters talk mor elike human beings naturally would in ME3, they are just talking codexes in ME1 just lazily blabbing info at the player instead of letting the plot taking care of most of the lore. This was a huge problem for old Bioware, where only the dueteragonist and tritagonist mattered in the plot and the other characters were just "there".

[Gemini1179]

Serp86 wrote...

weltraumhamster89 wrote...

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.

Oh come on the planets for sidequests all looked the same and driving the Mako up almost 180 degree mountains was annoying as hell. I just did a 100% complete ME1 run and an ME2 afterwards. ME2's sidemission were way less hmm stupid.


And to be honest the mainstory in ME1 was ALOT shorter then the one in both ME2 and ME3 .

I preferred the N7 missions in ME2. In ME1, it was about extra content. It was redundant, yet it still didn't feel like DA2 redundant or ME3 eavesdrop quest redundant.

I am also probably one of the few people who found driving the Mako and enjoying the elevator rides cathardic. The combat is really different from ME1 to ME2. The only real comparable thing is the cover system which ME2 does way better and then ME3 does even better. In any event, it's the story and characters that I appreciate first so I can take the combat as is in all 3 games without complaint. In any event, the Journal was implimented better in ME1 and 2 over 3 by a long shot.

ME1 was a cinematic experience of discovery and a race against time to discover a galactic threat.
ME2 was a charcter study and gritty suicide mission.
ME3 was full of laughter and tears (the good kind) for the most of it. The end blew chunks. There are enough breakdowns floating around that I don't have to go into details.

[ahandsomeshark]

Sparatus wrote...

People love to look at Mass Effect through rose tinted glasses because it came first. And I admit, I still enjoy the game. But it had its fair share of issues.

A lot of the characters were very static (Garrus and Tali, Liara to an extent) dialog choices usually ending with Shepard saying the same thing regardless. And the clunky inventory, mako, and huge maps with nothing on them but maybe one landmark can be really huge faults.

agreed, though I also think if you look at it relative to when it came out the clunkiness really isn't that bad. Though I definitely agree about the characters you mentioned, I didn't like any of them until ME2. As for the side missions the reused maps were awful but at least most of the side missions went beyond just going somewhere and clearing out enemies, usually you had a chance to talk to the NPC that gave it to you and investigate and in many of them you had the chance to talk and figure out more of the story on the other end also. That's what I really miss from the side missions in ME2 and ME3. I don't want to just overhear someone's problem and go fix it. I want to talk to them and understand their story and then if other people are involved talk to them also.

[iamthedave3]

txgoldrush wrote...

oh wiat the RPG elements in ME1 WEREN'T good...the atrocious inventory, the atrocious mod system, the horrifically unbalanced leveling system, the fact that you can be screwed playing a nuetral character, etc.

RPG elements done poorly.

The inventory wasn't atrocious, it just wasn't done well. I've never found it hard to get to the best stuff, it's just that nothing stacks so it takes a while to clear everything out. I've seen 'atrocious' inventory systems. You're just engaging in blatant hyperbole.

The mod system worked fine. Again, hyperbole.

The leveling system worked fine as well. Again, hyperbole.

Look, you hate ME 1. I get it. But lying about the game isn't going to impress me. I've been playing RPGs all my life, I've seen bad and I've seen good. ME 1 was good. Not the best I've ever played, but good.

Most of your side missions on ME 3 come from eavesdropping on other people's conversations. They're so distanced from your character that they are not even introduced in conversation with your character. THAT is atrocious. Not to mention that almost every one of them is just to make a number go up a little.

The League of One medallions and Dilinaga writings missions were superfluous but that's standard 'RPG completionist' fare. Most of the mini missions I loved and were just right. Major Kyle, Nessana Dantius, the Kohoku sub plot... liked it all.

Modifié par iamthedave3, 31 mars 2012 - 08:32 .

[Aesieru]

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.

ME1 matched Tali's naivety perfectly.

[JPR1964]

ME1 is my favorite : I like exploration, I like the mako, i liked to be able to create 5 enough different soldiers or engineer, I like the armor and weapon customizing...

Some scenery during the exploration of the planets are truly magnificent...

ME3 was close to replace it in my heart, until the end...

I liked ME2 for the npc stories, but the rpg part was non existent..

ME3 is now a full garbage for me, with the mono unconspicuous ending, that kill replay value in my eye, I prefer dump it in a hole...

JPR out!

[Mixxer5]

ME1 is far more deeper than ME2 and ME3. Reapers are presented better than in next games and we meet only one of them, putting together scraps of informations. Technically next games are better of course but weapon system in ME1 is best in series. ME2 is technically better than ME1. Also missions are less linear, side quests aren't copy&paste only. There is some serious number of main plot as well as side plot (really much texts and audio diaries). ME3 jas best gameplay... But motovation to play is worse than in previous games. 20 side quests, half of them are scanning planets only. 3 "big" side quests (grissom academy, rachni investigation, monastery), rest- multiplayer maps without ANY interaction with NPCs (unless killing them is some kind of interaction). No story for those missions (briefiengs only). Main quests are terribly short- 20-30 minutes (is there any longer?). Plot, story, characters during missions- strongly reduced. Have You noticed that there aren't almost none computer logs and audio diaries (I've found some in Sanctuary only). Talking with NPCs scraped from "medium" options and investigate options. Most choices- doesn't matter (RACHNI-100 war assets??). "Great final " is very small final. It's taking London back (for a while) not Earth (and why London instead of... I don't know Tokyo? Maybe Moscov? Paris? Maybe more cities?). It's 30 minutes mission and it doesn't make any breaktrough in plot (last 5 minutes- Starchild, no answers at all, final choices...). Yeah ME3 was rushed as hell!

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

This is wrong AND NOT what Mass Effect was ever about.

[Serp86]

ME2 had alot of sidemission where you talk with people. Like the Patron stuff on Omega, getting stuff for Ish on Omega , finding the parts for the Krogan vehicle on Tuchanka or talking sense into the scout to walk back to Urdnot. It had some eavesdropping as well but way less then in ME3.

I mean in ME2 i could fly to some random planets scan them and find  quests on them that are very different from each other. Not very long but different.  Rescuing the Quarian, finding power cells for the Robot to get to the minerals , exploring a prothean digsite to find a buttload of husks , stopping batarian terrorists etc. There was ALOT of stuff.

Modifié par Serp86, 31 mars 2012 - 08:38 .

[iamthedave3]

The Sovereign conversation might be the single best exchange in the whole series.

[DarkBladeX98]

question to the OP.
Was ME1 your first Mass Effect?
If so, the bad parts will stand out way more to you.
Please realize the game came out in 07, and it was their first ME produced.
Many of the features were experimental, they were trying new things.
Naturally they won't be perfect at the first time.
One thing ME1 didn't do was cancel itself out with its ending.