340 réponses à ce sujet

[lillitheris]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

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.

It's not that it's big, it just wasn't proportionately crowded. There were 2 000 000+ humans alone, plus everybody else.

[poundoffleshaa]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

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.

So was every Shepard class in Mass Effect 1 (either biotic abuse or immunity imortality) and most classes in  ME2 (accept biotic clases that got shafted by the new shield system). 

[Lavits75]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Congrats! You found two examples. What of Tali? She was my love interest, how come I couldn't have a real conversation with her.What of Thane, you literally have a two second conversation on his disease then it stops? You couldn't talk to Garrus on the ship, the bottle shooting scene was it. You couldn't talk to Liara on the ship, the scene where she comes to your cabin is it. The conversations and character interaction were ******-poor. You can't possibly believe otherwise. Most of the conversation in the game was linear, with no choices. Hell, half of it was like the conversation with downloaded characters.

[Rip504]

You give the illusion of choice. Restrict my freewill and prove it at endgame. The endgame choice is meaningless. Reapers are gone,Shep is gone,and Mass Relays are gone. In all 3 choices. Obviously in 10,000 years all they know is this. Based on the "Space Winter" scene after the credits... So what meaning is there in these 3 choices... None IMO as they all end up being remembered in the same manner.

The old man didn't say hey Shepard is now the Reaper God,or Hey we all have synthetic parts because of Shepard's choice. Really in 2 endings Reapers are gone,but still alive...

[DarkBladeX98]

iamthedave3 wrote...

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.

This is true, an RPG by definition is the player filling a "role".
Skyrim and TES are more of a blaze your own trail sort of thing, but you can't argue with its leveling and item systems.

Kingdom Hearts probably fits more into what you described, it was mainly story, and Sora was his own character. You leveled up, got different Keyblades, and watched the Disney-FF story.

[tenojitsu]

Serp86 wrote...

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.

The length of the relationship has a lot to do with, aside from the character development. It's human nature to be more attached to someone you've known for years as opposed to months

[Mandalore313]

What on earth are you on about?

ME1 had bugs sure.
None of it was game breaking though, at most all you had to do was quickload and all your problems would be gone.
Story wise it was the best game, it managed to get you interested and care about a world you had never seen before.


ME3 also has bugs, but the reason everyone is complaining and saying they won't replay it isn't the fact that you can get stuck in the normandy cockpit. It's how this trilogy ended.
Understand what you're talking about before saying anything.
Thanks.

[DranakShadow]

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.

So glad you feel the need to speak for everyone.

[ahandsomeshark]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

...i don't think you understand what the world balance means.

[JackN7]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

I don't want my Shepard to talk for me! and when you get a choice theres only 2 options.

[txgoldrush]

Lavits75 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Congrats! You found two examples. What of Tali? She was my love interest, how come I couldn't have a real conversation with her.What of Thane, you literally have a two second conversation on his disease then it stops? You couldn't talk to Garrus on the ship, the bottle shooting scene was it. You couldn't talk to Liara on the ship, the scene where she comes to your cabin is it. The conversations and character interaction were ******-poor. You can't possibly believe otherwise. Most of the conversation in the game was linear, with no choices. Hell, half of it was like the conversation with downloaded characters.

I counted 6 dialogue sequences for most of the characters in ME3 either on teh ship or the citadel, Tali gets 4. And really, you get to talk to them MORE than in the first game where each character had only three talks on the ship, with an extra for LI. Nevermind they were more human moments with the characters unlike tlaking codex in ME1.

Hey at least they got more to say when they run out of regular dialogue unlike ME1 and ME2.

Oh wait did you miss the part where Garrus was talking about the "ruthless calculus of war"...that was on the ship.

[ahandsomeshark]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

...i don't think you understand what the world balance means.

when I say overpowered I mean there's no real strategy or challenge in the combat because Shepard just wrecks everything. 

[txgoldrush]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

...i don't think you understand what the world balance means.

so if each class kills enemies very effectively evenly, that is balance....what is not balance is having characters that can have good builds and poor builds...like ME1 or a DAO.

[Lavits75]

How can you possibly say ME3 is better because choices were seen more? ME1 had littel consequence because the affects wouldn't have been immediate. Freeing the Rachni queen, for example. That consequence wouldn't be felt a few days later, it would have been felt three years later. Really, ME3 failed in consequence because issues from ME1 that had all this in-game time to develop were barely relevant.

[Aesieru]

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.

Aesieru wrote...


Because it was integral, it just gave you CHOICE.

Uh, no. Garrus is probably the least integral character in Mass Effect. Even Tali plays the part of presenting the evidence and getting you off the Citadel. Garrus just has that one part where he tells you about Fist. Which Wrex also does.

And Wrex later plays an important part on Virmire.

Garrus shows you how not all Turians are bad, he's the only one in the entire game to show you that.

[txgoldrush]

ahandsomeshark wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

...i don't think you understand what the world balance means.

when I say overpowered I mean there's no real strategy or challenge in the combat because Shepard just wrecks everything. 

So, shooting a shield works just as well as overloading it...oh wait, there is strategy. play insanity.

[ahandsomeshark]

also I literally tried talking to everyone after every mission and it didn't seem like there were near as many options as in ME1&2.

[Rip504]

txgoldrush wrote...

and ME1 didn't do this? LOL

Is this my argument or point? No. So why say this?
But you agree ME3 also did do this. Making the original better then the ending,as the ending completely failed the ME universe and trilogy. As where ME1 left more to be expected,and desired. ME3 left bitterness and questions.
A  failing to end a trilogy. When ME3 gave us more questions then answers,most anything is better then it. During a cliche,stolen,bit,and borrowed story and concept.

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Obsidian AND Bethesda have always had the same issues.

I preferred FO3, but that was because it held onto its Sci-Fi type that it had from FO2, Vegas threw that out the window. But FO3 had that Alien, that Swamp, and that horrible Pitt dlc. Broken Steel and Anchorage were arguably quality.

Modifié par Aesieru, 31 mars 2012 - 09:16 .

[Little Princess Peach]

the xbox version of mass effect and the ps3 suck but the pc version i find perfect I guess it depends on taste

[txgoldrush]

Aesieru 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.

Aesieru wrote...


Because it was integral, it just gave you CHOICE.

Uh, no. Garrus is probably the least integral character in Mass Effect. Even Tali plays the part of presenting the evidence and getting you off the Citadel. Garrus just has that one part where he tells you about Fist. Which Wrex also does.

And Wrex later plays an important part on Virmire.

Garrus shows you how not all Turians are bad, he's the only one in the entire game to show you that.

or the general in the bar, or the investigator running an undercover op, etc.

[Avalon Aurora]

ME1 had superior narrative and less plot holes. Yes, the game was buggy, and the combat was unbalanced, and the controls sucked, but those were all forgivable for the storytelling. I'll admit the walking codex entry team-mates and nonsensical bringing along of Liara and Tali was rather awkward, but it is somewhat excused if the player off screen is assumed to have tested their combat skills, and given that you may have theoretically been keeping them close to protect them from Saren. It's graphics were excellent for the time it came out, so that isn't a legitimate complaint.

ME3's poor narrative and plot holes galore, lack of fulfilling descriptions made by the Bioware team pre-release, often rather explicitly, and... the... ending... Well, nice game mechanics and some good dialogue and nice emotional moments in the middle of the game doesn't quite make up for the ending, or even to a much lesser degree the beginning, the day 1 DLC, the semi-forced low quality multi-player, the half-assed job answering complaints about issues from ME2, the terribad journal, and the questionable use of the 'war assets' mechanic, the forced use of the questionable Crucible plot-device, Tali's photofail face, use of easily recognizable stock images, reduced dialogue options, creepy overhearing Shepard, poor and minimal use of Shadow Broker Liara, mimimized effects of choices from previous games to shoehorn in practically identical missions no matter how you did things, and numerous other issues. Refinement of graphics and gameplay mechanics was expected, especially given that most of the work there was already done, and they are simply refining the original engine from ME1 and it's evolutions in 2, it wasn't even that impressive, given how much re-used assets came from previous games and continued issues with clipping, getting locked in weird positions standing on stuff and continued issues with things like helmet removal on some armors, which theoretically isn't that hard an issue to fix. I wouldn't be surprised if given the groundwork already there, they spent less time on the gameplay mechanics and graphics than they did in ME1 or 2, which makes the issues remaining even more horrendous.

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

ahandsomeshark wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

...i don't think you understand what the world balance means.

when I say overpowered I mean there's no real strategy or challenge in the combat because Shepard just wrecks everything. 

So, shooting a shield works just as well as overloading it...oh wait, there is strategy. play insanity.

If your argument relies on the need to change difficulty for it to work, your argument has holes.

[KingKhan03]

ME1 was the first game in the series ME3 was the last.. You can't rush it the last game in a trilogy.

[txgoldrush]

Rip504 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

and ME1 didn't do this? LOL

Is this my argument or point? No. So why say this?
But you agree ME3 also did do this. Making the original better then the ending,as the ending completely failed the ME universe and trilogy. As where ME1 left more to be expected,and desired. ME3 left bitterness and questions.
A  failing to end a trilogy. When ME3 gave us more questions then answers,most anything is better then it. During a cliche,stolen,bit,and borrowed story and concept.

Is there a rule that states that trilogies can't end on a dark note?

In fact a bright ending to a trilogy is far more cliched than a bitter one, speaking of cliches.