340 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

Which could have easily been implimented in Eden Prime.

[Mixxer5]

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.

Whaat? Instead of fighting Reapers I was fighting Cerberus all the time. How is it possible that they've much enough resources to fight with whole galaxy, lose and still fight? Why Reapers are merely background? Why there's none side story presented or expanded? Why most choices doesn't matter? Etc, etc...

[scrapmetals]

TemplePhoenix wrote...

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.

Pretty much this. I never cried from ME1 and 2 (got worried over Garrus, but didn't CRY)... I cried five times during ME3.

[Mad-Max90]

You wanna talk about rushed games, get off of microsoft's back and back onto EA, or have you never played dragon age 2...I still wake up in cold sweats after playing that game, yet somehow, I like it more than mass effect 3

[mauro2222]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

First game of the series... god, think better before you write. ME3 it's the conclussion of the choices in previous games... god!!!

[DarkBladeX98]

Aesieru wrote...

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.

wait, is txgoldrush the OP?
wow, I'm done if that's your viewpoint. The whole premise of an RPG is to play it your way. The experience should be different for every player. And each game has gotten much linear, its true.
Look at Skyrim or any Elder Scrolls game. It is the epitome of an RPG. Total freedom, a fully customizable character, giant world full of interactable characters, tons of dungeons, ruins, multiple storylines(all well written if I may say so myself). Engaging environments, believeable settings, fun gameplay, and a lot of skills that allow the player to progress his character.
Mass Effect is a game that is a lot more focused on the "role" that you "play" in the "game". You play the role of Shepard, and a lot of things hinge on the words that come out of your mouth. You have a lot of choice, but its more centered on how to handle a situation, whereas in Skyrim your own character's dialogue is, well, silent, but you have unlimited choice with a lot more aspects of the game than in Mass Effect.

Skyrim- actions speak louder than words (or actions+words=dragon language)
Mass Effect- the pen is mightier than the sword

Both work really well, and Bethesda and BioWare both execute their games almost perfectly.


Back to the OP's ridiculous statement, yes it needs a story, but in an RPG player choice easily trumps story. If story was more important, we'd all be forced to play either a full Paragon or a full Renegade Shepard, and all we'd control was his ability points and combat aspects. This is know as a 3rd person action game. Mass Effect is a 3rd person RPG.

[MassEffect762]

Ticondurus wrote...

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

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

Which could have easily been implimented in Eden Prime.

Yes, obviously the beacon also should have the entire understanding of the Prothean people locked inside... because every time a beacon is used with a message they should also get a dataload of the entire history of their people. Good luck sifting through that in time.

[MassEffect762]

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.

[Titan_HQ]

Every game has bugs or gameplay issues, that is NOT what is wrong with ME3. The story and narrative are sub-standard and THAT is what is at the heart of the problem. Though even if it was ME3 still has significantly worse game-play than ME1.

ME1 had an amazing narrative which came through strong and made the technical issues non-existent, for me at least.

[mauro2222]

txgoldrush wrote...

mauro2222 wrote...

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.

Which could have easily been implimented in Eden Prime.

True, also the catalyst could have called the Reapers before Eden Prime, or Sovereign could have killed Shepard on Eden Prime.... your logic fails.

You also need Liara

[txgoldrush]

Gemini1179 wrote...

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.

DA2 characters and much of its plot, yes.....gameplay...no. Did you read my OP saying that DA2 was their most rushed game?

RPGs shouldn't have filler, The Witcher 2 didn't, most Ultima games didn't, Fallout New Vegas didn't (suprising for an open world RPG)...side quests should connect to the main story or its themes, they should be consistant.

ME1 wasn't consistant, it was filler. The citadel is one thing....but when you are chasing someone across the galaxy in a race against time, its a pacing problem and a break of immersion.

[Catroi]

Ticondurus wrote...

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

^this

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

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.

DA2 characters and much of its plot, yes.....gameplay...no. Did you read my OP saying that DA2 was their most rushed game?

RPGs shouldn't have filler, The Witcher 2 didn't, most Ultima games didn't, Fallout New Vegas didn't (suprising for an open world RPG)...side quests should connect to the main story or its themes, they should be consistant.

ME1 wasn't consistant, it was filler. The citadel is one thing....but when you are chasing someone across the galaxy in a race against time, its a pacing problem and a break of immersion.

Vegas had tons of filler, especially in those terrible DLC's.

Witcher 2 had filler as well, you just may have missed it. And a lot of the sex scenes were also just filler.

---

Also there was no race against time until the end, you first didn't even know where he was, so you were supposed to follow leads that could explain things.

Modifié par Aesieru, 31 mars 2012 - 08:50 .

[txgoldrush]

Sparatus wrote...

Honestly, either Feros or Noveria could have been cut or merged into one world. They are both too similar to one another.

And the issue with characterization is that not all of them were a walking codex. Wrex for example. He explained what the krogan are and what their issues are. But he was still a solid character.

Because Wrex had a strong plot moment.....unlike say Garrus or Tali.

[scrapmetals]

txgoldrush wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

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.

DA2 characters and much of its plot, yes.....gameplay...no. Did you read my OP saying that DA2 was their most rushed game?

RPGs shouldn't have filler, The Witcher 2 didn't, most Ultima games didn't, Fallout New Vegas didn't (suprising for an open world RPG)...side quests should connect to the main story or its themes, they should be consistant.

ME1 wasn't consistant, it was filler. The citadel is one thing....but when you are chasing someone across the galaxy in a race against time, its a pacing problem and a break of immersion.

Main quests should connect to the main story.

Side quests  are side quests for a reason. Some of them should connect to the main story, but not all of them should have to. Some of them should just be fun.

New Vegas had plenty of filler. At least in my playthrough it did.

[poundoffleshaa]

The reason I like ME plot better than ME3 is that ME does a far better job of introducing the universe and the threats than ME3 does of wrapping it all up and ending the series. As for the later games being more emotional I think that was mainly due to build up throughout the series. Having spent a couple of games getting to know a character you are clearly going to be more attached to that character than in just one game.

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

Sparatus wrote...

Honestly, either Feros or Noveria could have been cut or merged into one world. They are both too similar to one another.

And the issue with characterization is that not all of them were a walking codex. Wrex for example. He explained what the krogan are and what their issues are. But he was still a solid character.

Because Wrex had a strong plot moment.....unlike say Garrus or Tali.

GARRUS WAS MAJOR, he was required to allow us to get used to a friendly Turian, especially since most of the game's codexs and a lot of in-human convos were intended to show a type of racism towards our first alien enemy.

[txgoldrush]

Aesieru wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Gemini1179 wrote...

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.

DA2 characters and much of its plot, yes.....gameplay...no. Did you read my OP saying that DA2 was their most rushed game?

RPGs shouldn't have filler, The Witcher 2 didn't, most Ultima games didn't, Fallout New Vegas didn't (suprising for an open world RPG)...side quests should connect to the main story or its themes, they should be consistant.

ME1 wasn't consistant, it was filler. The citadel is one thing....but when you are chasing someone across the galaxy in a race against time, its a pacing problem and a break of immersion.

Vegas had tons of filler, especially in those terrible DLC's.

Witcher 2 had filler as well, you just may have missed it. And a lot of the sex scenes were also just filler.

WRONG...New Vegas's DLC fleshed out the, IDK, the courier and many of the plot elements of New Vegas.

Nevermind the Witcher 2's side content dealt with the saga's themes very strongly, nevermind the line of work Geralt takes.

[tenojitsu]

scrapmetals wrote...

TemplePhoenix wrote...

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.

Pretty much this. I never cried from ME1 and 2 (got worried over Garrus, but didn't CRY)... I cried five times during ME3.

One could argue the reason you cried in ME3 was because you already knew the well developed characters from ME1 and ME2. Everyone seems to love Garrus and Tali. Why is that? Maybe because they were playable characters in both of the first 2 games. Would anyone really care of Vega or Javik were killed off? I know I sure wouldn't, and that because there isn't years attachment to the two. If there ended up being an ME5 someday that had Vega and Javik in all the games from now till then, I'm sure I would care if they get killed then.

[DranakShadow]

ME1 mechanics were pretty horrible. The mako was downright painful to drive to anyone who's played a game that involved vehicles. The main questline consisted of Eden Prime, Feros/Noveria (You can skip one, if I remember right), Vermire, Ilos, and the Citadel. That's really not much for actual core content.

The side missions felt a bit bland as they mostly involved landing on a generic planet with the mako, and fighting generic people that consisted of mostly combat/biotic/tech type, depending on who you were fighting.

Your crew, except for joker and Garrus mostly, felt like nothing but walking codexes for their race, and didn't really feel like actual characters until 2. Last but not least, the balance was flat out horrible. I remember by the end of the game, I was mostly using pistols and killing everything far easier than with an assault rifle. Not to mention Liara's mission felt like it was the hardest part of the game.

Deny it all you want, but the only real thing ME1 had going for it was the main story. ME2 improved on just about everything ME1 dropped the ball on.

Modifié par DranakShadow, 31 mars 2012 - 08:58 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

If they had done ME1 a little more like ME2 where you got to do a little exploring first like pick up Liara, then do a side mission and Feros, then that triggered a call from the council to go to Noveria, then you have a little break to do a few more side missions, then another call from the council to go to Virmire, then back to the Citadel > Ilos > then final battle > end > free play to finish side missions > DLC like they did with ME2, it would have been the best of the series.

ME1 had the best main story line from start to finish, but it had a more sandbox feel to it with all the side missions. There was no sense of urgency like there was in ME2. ME2 was "The Empire Strikes Back". There were a more plot holes in ME2, but the game mechanics had improved except for the global cooldowns.

ME3 really gives a rushed out the door feel on the second playthrough. It's really difficult to get into. It feels more "action" oriented and less role playing oriented. Skyrim is more of an RPG for interaction than this one. You'd think you'd get more than "Hello Shepard." from your LI on the Citadel, but they only wrote dialog for after each major mission. And this goes for pretty much all of the characters. I would have liked more interaction. I can forgive the lack of interaction during rush combat got to get to the ship in a hurry scenes, but when you're on your way across the galaxy why not take some time?

They got the combat part right on ME3. That's the strong point. Overall, though given what it is, however, it is the weakest of the trilogy even before the current ending.

I've put the game on the back burner again waiting for tomorrow, and possibly a PAX announcement regarding any DLC. It is the only ME game that I might actually trade in.

[txgoldrush]

Aesieru wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Sparatus wrote...

Honestly, either Feros or Noveria could have been cut or merged into one world. They are both too similar to one another.

And the issue with characterization is that not all of them were a walking codex. Wrex for example. He explained what the krogan are and what their issues are. But he was still a solid character.

Because Wrex had a strong plot moment.....unlike say Garrus or Tali.

GARRUS WAS MAJOR, he was required to allow us to get used to a friendly Turian, especially since most of the game's codexs and a lot of in-human convos were intended to show a type of racism towards our first alien enemy.

If he is major, than why is he optional?

Hell, he is less major than Fenris of DA2, which while optional, plays a role in the plot (especially if you side with the mages without loyalty) and its themes strongly.