Aller au contenu

Photo

If ME3 was rushed, ME1 was WAY worse.


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
340 réponses à ce sujet

#76
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

iamthedave3 wrote...

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.


No its horrible...almost Ultima VII bad, where going to the inventory is a chore, especially if you have spectre gear and the things that drop are always worse.

Mod system is fine, until you realize that all you need is shredden/tungsten rounds, than its pointless.

Nevermind the leveling system had horrible unbalanced powers where you can cheeese the rest of th egame when you get, making the game harder at the beginning than at the end, a backwards difficluty curve. Nevrmind the enemies don't really get that harder.

I don't hate mE1, I like it, but I HATE the hypocrisy of this game forum trying to bash ME3 for doing the same rush job ME1 did, which ME1 did worse.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 31 mars 2012 - 08:34 .


#77
Aesieru

Aesieru
  • Members
  • 4 201 messages

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.


Since Varric is telling the entire story of Hawke, yes he's a walking codex.

#78
Kingthlayer

Kingthlayer
  • Members
  • 1 542 messages

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/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 . 


The main story in Mass Effect 2 consisted of 2 planets, a Reaper and a Collector Base.  The companion missions were just tacked on, and at the end of the day useless because none of them come back for Mass Effect 3.

#79
poundoffleshaa

poundoffleshaa
  • Members
  • 475 messages
Mass Effect 1 had the worst game play of the series but the best plot it also had exploration which was cut entirely from the other games. I think that plot is more important than game play for RPG's so it is the best of the three in my opinion.

#80
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Big Mac Heart Attack wrote...

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/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 . 


The main story in Mass Effect 2 consisted of 2 planets, a Reaper and a Collector Base.  The companion missions were just tacked on, and at the end of the day useless because none of them come back for Mass Effect 3.


oh wait, but they do, with many of these quest threads ending in ME3, like Miranda's sister.

#81
Aesieru

Aesieru
  • Members
  • 4 201 messages

Vigil_N7 wrote...

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.


Assets, continuity, logic, and realism in regards to the story and established canon were all meaningless and thrown out the window. The entire final mission had gaping flaws, and there are over 30 critical plot holes. Your forces get replaced by meaningless and useless versions that die miserably.

There are so many issues in ME3.

#82
mauro2222

mauro2222
  • Members
  • 4 236 messages

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.


Side quests? what?

So, from the start you knew why Saren attacked Eden Prime with his Dreadnought, who was Benezia, what they wanted with the Rachni...

And you completly missed my point.

#83
Mad-Max90

Mad-Max90
  • Members
  • 1 090 messages
I still play mass effect 1 at least once every 2 months...I haven't touched mass effect 3 since I "beat" it, nor do I plan to until things are addressed

#84
Aesieru

Aesieru
  • Members
  • 4 201 messages

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....


ME3 HAD SO MANY BUGS AND ISSUES THAT YOU COULD ARGUE QA NEVER EVEN TOUCHED IT, DO NOT GO AROUND INSULTING ME1.

Hell ME2 has so many areas to get stuck in the PC version that it has far more prevailing issues.

The only issue with ME1 was that the Mako was a bit boring and that the DLC wasn't what was promised.

#85
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

poundoffleshaa wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had the worst game play of the series but the best plot it also had exploration which was cut entirely from the other games. I think that plot is more important than game play for RPG's so it is the best of the three in my opinion.


ME3, despite the end, had a far better plot than ME1. Hell, I think Feros is filler and really the plot of ME1 didn't get good until Virmire.

#86
Aesieru

Aesieru
  • Members
  • 4 201 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

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....


You mean like ME3?

#87
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Aesieru wrote...

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....


ME3 HAD SO MANY BUGS AND ISSUES THAT YOU COULD ARGUE QA NEVER EVEN TOUCHED IT, DO NOT GO AROUND INSULTING ME1.

Hell ME2 has so many areas to get stuck in the PC version that it has far more prevailing issues.

The only issue with ME1 was that the Mako was a bit boring and that the DLC wasn't what was promised.


or that the combat was atrocious and unbalanced or that the inventory system sucked, or that the side quests lack any passion with the cut and paste jobs....

Nothing says this game was rushed more than cut and paste jobs....

#88
Guest_Sparatus_*

Guest_Sparatus_*
  • Guests
I actually think Mass Effect 3 handled sidequests best. They were actual parts of the story, but optional. In Mass Effect did it pretty well with you exploring a new galaxy. Until you notice everyone lives in the same base.

Mass Effect 2 handled them the worse. You just landed on random planets and shot mercenaries.

Modifié par Sparatus, 31 mars 2012 - 08:40 .


#89
nhk3

nhk3
  • Members
  • 32 messages
ME1 is the best for me.
Here's a long explanation why:
Gameplay mechanics wise very few problems. Inventory management is a bit difficult at times, but all RPGs typically have large inventories - I admit it could have been done better - no need to find like 5 times the weapon to equip it on all squadmates would be nice - however no inventory at all sucks. Mako complaints and whatnot - the problem wasn't the mako per se, at least from my point of view. The vehicle made a lot of sense. it's just that some of the anomalies we were supposed to reach had no clear path to them and we had to climb those 90% slopes. Exploration wise - best of the series, I don't care that every other planet had the same building or whatnot. I felt like an explorer actually being given the freedom to go around on the surface of a planet in a tank-like vehicle, be able to step in or out of it as I choose, etc. etc.. ME2 and 3 don't have anything in this regard. Not to mention the N7 Assignments in ME3 that are basically multiplayer maps tacked on in single player with 2-3 objectives being put in for good measure. I like weapon management in ME3 better, but there's no sense that you just killed some guy and got his gun, because you didn't neither in ME2 nor ME3.And ammuntion systems in ME2-3 don't make sense since you run out of ammo. I get that they want us to reload instead of firing a constant volley but they could have made it like fire 30 shots then reload and not  run out of ammo, it would be like venting a retractable heatsink instead of what we got now.Isn't that what RPGs are about - random loot rewards. Let's have a say about the armors ME1 armors make a lot more sense, even without the customization and whatnot, you had armors with special qualities, also different levels of armor, now you've got the same level of armor with different tweaks each time, and no armor customization for party members at all except the pretty useless "character skins", at least they add some kind of bonus in ME3, but still don't hold up to ME1 armors. Character progression wise - the decrease in available skills since ME2 is a quite a letdown, also ammo being a special power - I have to say that it makes no sense at all. Hey look at my amazing biotic/tech ... ammo power. So ME1 wins in this regard. Biotic and tech explosions are a great addition though and credit is due, however they could have improved upon ME1 instead of overhauling it ground-up. Reputation bar is a big win  - ME3 is the best in this aspect hands down.
Let's say about the story immersion and whatnot. For me personally the story has great importance and the story of ME1 is much more plausible than ME2 or 3. Not that I didn't enjoy the idea of Shepard dying in ME2  - the game had some pretty awesome moments, but the overall plot is a bit weak - go around, collect some people, and go kill some enemy never mentioned before. So why didn't the collectors help Sovereign or something. Nevermind, they didn't know he needed help. Also working with Cerberus is a bit illogical, and suddenly everybody's aware of the supposedly secretive organization - yeah, totally makes sense.It is pretty obvious that the Collectors weren't planned as anything else beyond being the enemy in ME2 and didn't serve much of a purpose to the overarching plot of the reaper invasion. ME3 I admit had some awesome moments - however the best ones weren't some key moments like the beginning or ending, but just random encounters or conversations inbetween. Seems like the overall story arch was a bit weak with the magical weapon magically being discovered at the last possible moment to stop the reapers etc. Even though both sequels had great and memorable moments and ME2 had more epic moments it seems that the overall plot of ME1 makes more sense than any of the sequels. Another thing is decision impact - ME1 save the  rachni queen - ME2 you get a random encounter with a possessed asari - great, ME3 you get 1 mission with the rachni queen - that's it for the big decision.
As for character interaction and such - crew interaction in ME3 was way below what ME1 and 2 had. On this point ME2 probably wins though some of the stories and loyalty missions didn't make complete sense. But seriously - who doesn't love Mording singing.

Modifié par nhk3, 31 mars 2012 - 08:42 .


#90
TheMerchantMan

TheMerchantMan
  • Members
  • 331 messages
Bioware had significantly less funding, a smaller support base and weaker technology to develop the original Mass Effect, it's lack of polish had nothing to do with time constraints, as it felt with ME3 (since they had the blockbuster level funding and support base) and everything to do with polishing being costly.

Yet, ME3, despite being the most anticipated game of the year and easily having the financial backing and fanbase support to give leeway to their production time, decided to release the game with a lack of polish that considering the fact that most of us would have waited much longer if it mean a better game, was nonsensical.

I could have waited until Summer, heck next Christmas if it mean Tali wasn't a photoshopped bimbo and they didn't reuse 90% of their cut-scene footage for all the endings.

#91
scrapmetals

scrapmetals
  • Members
  • 512 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

iamthedave3 wrote...

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.


No its horrible...almost Ultima VII bad, where going to the inventory is a chore, especially if you have spectre gear and the things that drop are always worse.

Mod system is fine, until you realize that all you need is shredden/tungsten rounds, than its pointless.

Nevermind the leveling system had horrible unbalanced powers where you can cheeese the rest of th egame when you get, making the game harder at the beginning than at the end, a backwards difficluty curve. Nevrmind the enemies don't really get that harder.

I don't hate mE1, I like it, but I HATE the hypocrisy of this game forum trying to bash ME3 for doing the same rush job ME1 did, which ME1 did worse.


You can't say "No it's horrible" and expect people to really believe you. That's your opinion, good for you. People don't have to share it and you sound like you're trying to push people to share your opinion.

Good job.

#92
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Aesieru wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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....


You mean like ME3?


oh wait, the combat and the skills are more balanced, and they allow you to be both paragon and renegade without screwing over persuasion checks....or the fact that choices actually matter more in ME3 than in ME1....try sabatoging the cure with Wrex alive for example.

ME1 had choice but lacked consquence, typical of old Bioware.

#93
Aesieru

Aesieru
  • Members
  • 4 201 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

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....


ME3 HAD SO MANY BUGS AND ISSUES THAT YOU COULD ARGUE QA NEVER EVEN TOUCHED IT, DO NOT GO AROUND INSULTING ME1.

Hell ME2 has so many areas to get stuck in the PC version that it has far more prevailing issues.

The only issue with ME1 was that the Mako was a bit boring and that the DLC wasn't what was promised.


or that the combat was atrocious and unbalanced or that the inventory system sucked, or that the side quests lack any passion with the cut and paste jobs....

Nothing says this game was rushed more than cut and paste jobs....


On both the 360 AND the PC versions of ME1 which I've played both many times, the combat was fine, fun even, especially with biotics being a lot more realistic and powerful like in the books. The inventory was acceptable and just was a little tedious. The side quests were primarily exploration for a galaxy you had no real connection to. Primarily Hackett was sending you on run's and a few sidequests were fun, were their a lot of useless ones or ones that could of been better? Sure, but ME2 and ME3 and even Skyrim could REALLY use some editing on their departments of quality side-quests. That's not something to really focus on too such a degree as being unforgivable.

Dragon Age 2 was cut and paste, so don't go around pointing it out if you're going to be a hypocrite and ignore its faults.

#94
iSpitfireee

iSpitfireee
  • Members
  • 180 messages
If ME3 had Mako missions like ME1 then it would be game over.

#95
mauro2222

mauro2222
  • Members
  • 4 236 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

poundoffleshaa wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had the worst game play of the series but the best plot it also had exploration which was cut entirely from the other games. I think that plot is more important than game play for RPG's so it is the best of the three in my opinion.


ME3, despite the end, had a far better plot than ME1. Hell, I think Feros is filler and really the plot of ME1 didn't get good until Virmire.


Well, if it's a filler, good luck trying to understand the prothean message without the cipher. And without cipher, Illos doesn't exists.

#96
sistersafetypin

sistersafetypin
  • Members
  • 2 413 messages

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.


This. And I've probably replayed ME1 more than any other game I own.

ME1 was a beautifully intense game when it first came out. Sure, compared to ME2 & 3 it is less polished. However, we're talking about the first in a series. I would be supremely dissapointed if Bioware didn't improve upon a game that came out in 2007

Modifié par sistersafetypin, 31 mars 2012 - 08:49 .


#97
TemplePhoenix

TemplePhoenix
  • Members
  • 319 messages
Personally, I think all 3 have things to recommend them. In my opinion:

ME1 has the most expansive world and the most sidequests.
ME2 has the best characterisation and the tightest plot.
ME3 has the best gameplay mechanics and the biggest emotional moments.

#98
Aesieru

Aesieru
  • Members
  • 4 201 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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....


You mean like ME3?


oh wait, the combat and the skills are more balanced, and they allow you to be both paragon and renegade without screwing over persuasion checks....or the fact that choices actually matter more in ME3 than in ME1....try sabatoging the cure with Wrex alive for example.

ME1 had choice but lacked consquence, typical of old Bioware.


They matter do they? So those assets you spend 25+ hours building up? You know the assets that include Volus Dreadnoughts and 5000+ Mercenaries and numerous other things... those things that both the cinematic and the game forgets about at the end and then replaces with generic forces that die miserably and can't even follow basic targeting laws established in ME2 when they said DON'T FIRE AT THE THING BEHIND THE TARGET. Did you mean those things that mattered?

What about the continuity that ME3 destroys WAY BEFORE the final 10 minutes? Or the lack of use of Thanix despite every codex entry praising their use and saying everyone has them by now? I didn't see a single one fire in ME3.

Oh yes, yes, so much quality in ME3.

#99
Gemini1179

Gemini1179
  • Members
  • 1 339 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

or that the combat was atrocious and unbalanced or that the inventory system sucked, or that the side quests lack any passion with the cut and paste jobs....

Nothing says this game was rushed more than cut and paste jobs....


I take it you're not a staunch supporter of DA2 then... anyway, I don't think the 'side quests' in ME1 says anything about being rushed. I think it was just content filler. Let's face it, the game is the main quest line, which you can probably do, even at a liesurely pace, in about 20 hours. The extra stuff is just that, extra. I don't think it is great, but I think it was what they had the budget to do given that it all has very little impact on the story.

The 'extra' stuff from ME1 was, and is, far more satisfying than the 'fetch' quests in either DA2 or ME3. If nothing else, bombing around in the Mako shooting threshers was fun I thought.

#100
tenojitsu

tenojitsu
  • Members
  • 1 143 messages
ME1 was their first crack at it. Was it as polished by today's standards? No. But for its time was it a batter made game then what ME3 is? I think yes. An exaggerated version of your argument is like saying Final Fantasy XIII is better than FFVII, or even FFX just because it looks better