340 réponses à ce sujet

[Flextt]

I have played all three games in quick succession, but in my memory, I like ME 1 the most.
What it was awful at:
- Planetary exploration. lol.
- Reused "dungeons"
- Inventory system
- Combat. Shotguns virtually unuseable until you get a decent level. Biotics close to worthless.

But, it did get the story right. I was so pumped being right behind Saren, facing Sovereign and ultimately killing both. I was so immensely motivated, I did not even know why. Afterwards, I was rewarded with a Reaper blowing up and a heroic emergence from the rubble.

ME 2 was a better rounded experience, but slightly worse than ME 1 regarding the story. I always felt the Collectors were kind of an asspull. Abducting WHOLE colonies? After being nothing more than an isolated presence and myth? Then there was Terminator. Not every game needs a video game-esque endboss for the sake of an endboss^^ I loved the emphasis on your very diverse crew and their issues, because it felt like giving faces to a vast, unknowable universe. ME 2 did much to improve immersion of the lore.
ME 3 could have been the best game of the three, being the middle ground of ME 1 and ME 2 design-wise, but even with a fixed ending, Cerberus needs A LOT of work imho. I didn't quite get their overall role and intentions, their means, who is indoctrinated, who is not, why don't they turn on TIM, why they suddenly have multiple cruisers, why they can head-on deal with the alliance after being nothing more than a former black-ops squad and so on.

[scrapmetals]

tenojitsu wrote...

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.

I would have cared if Vega or Javik had died because I do actually like those characters and have a connection with them even if they've only been in one game.

[JackN7]

ME1 had the best story I don't really give a **** about textures, I play ME for the story and character interactions, ME3 really let me down on this part

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Oh yeah, every DLC of Vegas was obviously intricately linked to the plot... no it was linked to a side run that told us nothing except the last one did and even that really wasn't important, was a major disappointment, and was TERRIBLE level design. But Vegas had a lot of bad pacing in it so it can be forgiven, Bethesda has ALWAYS failed at pacing, and they ALWAYS get to a point where it becomes dull, a lot of people just get used to it and think it's normal but it's not.

[Rip504]

ME3 has a cliche story and concept. How many ideas were stolen or borrowed from other major sci-fi books,movies,etc. A lot. ME3 is a poor conclusion to a trilogy. It is a good stand alone game,but fails epically as the conclusion to a trilogy.

With many problems,and glitches of it's own. This was suppose to be the most amazing game of our time,and I wouldn't say it was much better(if at all) then GoW3's campaign...

[ahandsomeshark]

Sparatus wrote...

Really, my major issue with Mass Effect isn't the inventory or Mako. But how pointlessly big the Citadel is. It's huge.

But there is hardly anything on it. It is pretty much that big to give Bioware the excuse to make you hunt down twenty-one Keepers.

super agree with this. You spend absurd amount of time just running from place to place in it.

[Serp86]

tenojitsu wrote...

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.

It doesn't have much to do with ME1 though. Tali just tells alot of stuff about Quarians you don't really get to know her until ME2 for example. Garrus gets a bit more but still not enough to make me really care. That started in ME2.

Wrex was great in ME1 though. Sadly we never got im back in the squad after the first game.

Modifié par Serp86, 31 mars 2012 - 08:58 .

[txgoldrush]

The Stoned Volus wrote...

ME1 had the best story I don't really give a **** about textures, I play ME for the story and character interactions, ME3 really let me down on this part

So you like talking codexes and stilted dialogue?

ME3 had FAR better character interaction.....Garrus bottle shooter moment and liara wirting you name in the stars says hi.

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Because it was integral, it just gave you CHOICE.

[tenojitsu]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

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.

I may even settled for my LI to at least face me when I spoke to her

[DarkBladeX98]

OP is found guilty on all counts of ignorance.

[Lavits75]

There's no way you can possibly compare ME1 to ME3. ME1 was literally a brand new idea with new technology. There were going to be bugs, there were going to be issues. ME3 had bugs too. There were times my character would be speaking and nothing came out. There were times he would miraculously teleport during missions, there were times I'd be talking to someone and they wouldn't be there. Games have bugs, get over it.

After clearing that up, your argument that remains is that it was too open. It was an open-world, open-galaxy RPG. It was supposed to be open.

As for story, you can't possibly tell me that ME3 had a story better than ME2.

[iamthedave3]

DarkBladeX98 wrote..

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.

You clearly haven't played many RPGs. The real defining characteristic of old RPGs was simply a story focus and levelling up system as opposed to action focus. See the entire JRPG genre which predates Elder Scrolls/Bioware style RPGs by many years.

Though fundamentally what you said's applicable because Bioware say they're aiming for the opposite of what TX said.

Nonetheless, the majority of RPGs on the market still involve you watching someone else's story. The Western RPG genre is still gathering names and games. Honestly I'm not sure which one I like more.

[Agamo45]

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.

If that's ridiculous then what do you call starchild?

[txgoldrush]

Aesieru wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Oh yeah, every DLC of Vegas was obviously intricately linked to the plot... no it was linked to a side run that told us nothing except the last one did and even that really wasn't important, was a major disappointment, and was TERRIBLE level design. But Vegas had a lot of bad pacing in it so it can be forgiven, Bethesda has ALWAYS failed at pacing, and they ALWAYS get to a point where it becomes dull, a lot of people just get used to it and think it's normal but it's not.

Obsidan....New Vegas was no different than Fallout and Fallout 2 while being open world, most of the quest dealt with the themes of the world.

[lillitheris]

iamthedave3 wrote...

You clearly haven't played many RPGs. The real defining characteristic of old RPGs was simply a story focus and levelling up system as opposed to action focus. See the entire JRPG genre which predates Elder Scrolls/Bioware style RPGs by many years.

Without commenting on the issue otherwise, what JRPG may or may not be about has no bearing on the ‘western’ RPG tradition, which traces from D&D and its ilk.

[ahandsomeshark]

Sparatus wrote...

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.

I think it handled Grissom Academy and the Monastery and the Geth Consensus best, my issue was that there were so few side quests like that. The rest were just land here and shoot some ceberus guys. If there were 2-3 more like those two, and more on Thessia, and if it replaced some of the N7 side missions with things like landing on other home worlds and evacuating, like the elcor extraction nonmission, I might agree it had the best. It's just the lack of quantity that drives me crazy.

[ahandsomeshark]

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.

what how in anyway is the combat more balanced? If anything every Shepard class is overpowered in ME3.

[Rip504]

Sparatus wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

ME3 has a cliche story and concept. How many ideas were stolen or borrowed from other major sci-fi books,movies,etc. A lot.

Mass Effect is a series of cliches. Cliches aren't bad, you know.

Yes,but ME3 is not an artistic creation,just a big cliche that bites,steals,and borrows anything it can.
It's a poor excuse for a conclusion to our trilogy.

[txgoldrush]

Lavits75 wrote...

There's no way you can possibly compare ME1 to ME3. ME1 was literally a brand new idea with new technology. There were going to be bugs, there were going to be issues. ME3 had bugs too. There were times my character would be speaking and nothing came out. There were times he would miraculously teleport during missions, there were times I'd be talking to someone and they wouldn't be there. Games have bugs, get over it.

After clearing that up, your argument that remains is that it was too open. It was an open-world, open-galaxy RPG. It was supposed to be open.

As for story, you can't possibly tell me that ME3 had a story better than ME2.

It is better, its far better paced, ME2 was errand boy mixed in with a short Collector plot.....ME2 was more about character development than plot.

[txgoldrush]

Rip504 wrote...

Sparatus wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

ME3 has a cliche story and concept. How many ideas were stolen or borrowed from other major sci-fi books,movies,etc. A lot.

Mass Effect is a series of cliches. Cliches aren't bad, you know.

Yes,but ME3 is not an artistic creation,just a big cliche that bites,steals,and borrows anything it can.
It's a poor excuse for a conclusion to our trilogy.

and ME1 didn't do this? LOL

[DarkBladeX98]

[quote]iamthedave3 wrote...

[quote]DarkBladeX98 wrote..

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.

[/quote]

You clearly haven't played many RPGs. The real defining characteristic of old RPGs was simply a story focus and levelling up system as opposed to action focus. See the entire JRPG genre which predates Elder Scrolls/Bioware style RPGs by many years.

Though fundamentally what you said's applicable because Bioware say they're aiming for the opposite of what TX said.

Nonetheless, the majority of RPGs on the market still involve you watching someone else's story. The Western RPG genre is still gathering names and games. Honestly I'm not sure which one I like more.

[/quote
this is true, an RPG by definition is you filling a "role".
TES series is more of a blaze your own trail kind of thing but the leveling and item system is one of the best IMO.
Kingdom Hearts had a lot of story and not much choice, would it better fit into RPG? Sora pretty much did his own thing, I just helped him kill Heartless.

[txgoldrush]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

what how in anyway is the combat more balanced? If anything every Shepard class is overpowered in ME3.

If every class is overpowered, I guess the game is balanced then.

[tenojitsu]

scrapmetals wrote...

tenojitsu wrote...

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.

I would have cared if Vega or Javik had died because I do actually like those characters and have a connection with them even if they've only been in one game.

Im not saying that's to impossible to like or ever care for the new characters, but I would bet that if a poll went up asking which character you save two of the four characters,  Garrus, Tali, Javik, and Vega, Garrus and Tali would win by a large margin. After three games there is more of attachment to the older characters. Who would you pick, an old friend of 5 years, or someone you just met a month ago

Modifié par tenojitsu, 31 mars 2012 - 09:12 .