340 réponses à ce sujet

[count_4]

txgoldrush wrote...
ME3 doesn't treat the characters like talking codex entries like ME1, ME3 has more organic writing than ME1 unlike the first games robotic like script at many points, ME3 has better combat than both ME1 and ME2

I'm with you on these.

txgoldrush wrote...
ME3 has a better paced plotline than ME1 and definitely ME2...the only thing ME1 has an advantage is the ending...thats it.

 
Concerning the plot, however, ME1 is far superior to ME3 and ME2 as well. After 4 years(PC player here) I can still feel the excitement during the first ME1 playthrough. It was compelling, fascinating and powerful. Neither ME2 nor ME3 could deliver that much of an experience.

ME3 is certainly the better game in gameplay, writing and production value, but neither the better experience nor story.

Modifié par count_4, 31 mars 2012 - 09:18 .

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Oh really? Septimus shows how he disrespects you unless you whip him into shape, but he still disrespects you just thinks you have some gutts. And the undercover op manipulates you the entire way.

Garrus actually is with you and he shows you how not all Turians are to be hated and how they're "human".

[bryceax]

I have to agree with the minority, ME1 was NOT the best in the series. I'm replaying it right now (with the hope of an ending fix by the time I make it to the third) and almost every aspect was improved and refined with the second two games. I honestly don't understand how it was more of an RPG like so many keep saying.

Having an inventory might be a classic component of role playing games, but the weapon acquisition and customization works FAR better in ME3. The first had more arbitrary dialogue forks, but the actual interactions and especially emotional connection improved with each game. The leveling up was improved in ME2 perfected in ME3. The only thing lacking from the third game was exploration. As broken as Mako missions were, being able to land on so many planets really established the awe of the universe. If you play the games together though this isn't really needed, because it is already established and Shepard doesn't have extra time to explore with the reapers attacking.

Modifié par bryceax, 31 mars 2012 - 09:19 .

[Lavits75]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

The part with Garrus on the ship wasn't deep-seated at all. He tells you the choice he was faced with and you can reassure or put him down. So, so, so deep.

And what exactly did you expect from the very FIRST installment of the series with the very FIRST introduction of the characters. In ME1 you hadn't built those relationships yet. You hadn't become as close. The conversations would have been slightly dull and awkward. In ME3 after three years of fighting impossible odds, I would imagine that characters like Tali, Garrus, and Liara would have more than, "It's nice to see you," "Come back later," and "Sorry, I've got some calibrations to run."

[txgoldrush]

Aesieru wrote...

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.

I wonder why games allow weak use of startegy on easy, but not on hard....no, your argument has holes, harder difficulties are for ghamers who want strats to matter more.

...and if you can cheese a game on its hardest difficulty, oh wait, ME1 does this. oops.

[txgoldrush]

bryceax wrote...

I have to agree with the minority, ME1 was NOT the best in the series. I'm replaying it right now (with the hope of an ending fix by the time I make it to the third) and almost every aspect was improved and refined with the second two games. I honestly don't understand how it was more of an RPG like so many keep saying.

Having an inventory might be a classic component of role playing games, but the weapon acquisition and customization works FAR better in ME3. The first had more arbitrary dialogue forks, but the actual interactions and especially emotional connection improved with each game. The leveling up was improved in ME2 perfected in ME3. The only thing lacking from the third game was exploration. As broken as Mako missions were, being able to land on so many planets really established the awe of the universe. If you play the games together though this isn't really needed, because it is already established and Shepard doesn't have extra time to explore with the reapers attacking.

you mean the silent majority....most people believe ME2 is better than ME1.

[Lavits75]

bryceax wrote...

I have to agree with the minority, ME1 was NOT the best in the series. I'm replaying it right now (with the hope of an ending fix by the time I make it to the third) and almost every aspect was improved and refined with the second two games. I honestly don't understand how it was more of an RPG like so many keep saying.

Having an inventory might be a classic component of role playing games, but the weapon acquisition and customization works FAR better in ME3. The first had more arbitrary dialogue forks, but the actual interactions and especially emotional connection improved with each game. The leveling up was improved in ME2 perfected in ME3. The only thing lacking from the third game was exploration. As broken as Mako missions were, being able to land on so many planets really established the awe of the universe. If you play the games together though this isn't really needed, because it is already established and Shepard doesn't have extra time to explore with the reapers attacking.

How dod ME2 and ME3 get improved and refined exactly? Trial and error. Why did the emotional attachment feel larger in ME2 and ME3?  Because you had TIME to develop relationships over three years. Do you meet strangers and instantly become attached to them?

New technology with new ideas is going to have problems. You know what ME1 did have? Amazing story. Rushed tech or rushed story? Which one's worse. And ME3 definately wasn't an RPG. Linear missions, few choices, one hub planet.

[Rip504]

DranakShadow wrote...

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.

If you are speaking to me,you a greatly mistaken. It is my opinion,(*) realize everybody can have one(an opinion). I speak for no one but myself,and those who may agree with me.

If you were not talking to me,my mistake,but it still stands.

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

I am not speaking of only the end of ME3,but the entire game as an ending to a trilogy.
A "dark ending" is fine. An alternate ending as we were promised would also be nice and fine. The end of ME3 is horrible and filled with holes and unanswered questions IMO,but the game as an ending to a trilogy fails
IMO.

It goes far beyond your so called "dark ending".

Modifié par Rip504, 31 mars 2012 - 09:25 .

[Lavits75]

txgoldrush wrote...

bryceax wrote...

I have to agree with the minority, ME1 was NOT the best in the series. I'm replaying it right now (with the hope of an ending fix by the time I make it to the third) and almost every aspect was improved and refined with the second two games. I honestly don't understand how it was more of an RPG like so many keep saying.

Having an inventory might be a classic component of role playing games, but the weapon acquisition and customization works FAR better in ME3. The first had more arbitrary dialogue forks, but the actual interactions and especially emotional connection improved with each game. The leveling up was improved in ME2 perfected in ME3. The only thing lacking from the third game was exploration. As broken as Mako missions were, being able to land on so many planets really established the awe of the universe. If you play the games together though this isn't really needed, because it is already established and Shepard doesn't have extra time to explore with the reapers attacking.

you mean the silent majority....most people believe ME2 is better than ME1.

ME2 IS better than ME1. But ME3? Worst of the trilogy

[Kosmiker]

Im a ME1 praiser, a ME2 fanboy and a ME3 fan. And you're an heretic!

[Jamie9]

txgoldrush wrote...
you mean the silent majority....most people believe ME2 is better than ME1.

Probably should make a poll for this...

For what it's worth: ME2>ME3>ME1

[Aesieru]

txgoldrush wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

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.

I wonder why games allow weak use of startegy on easy, but not on hard....no, your argument has holes, harder difficulties are for ghamers who want strats to matter more.

...and if you can cheese a game on its hardest difficulty, oh wait, ME1 does this. oops.

Harder difficulties are for people who want to die more, so they feel more accomplishment, this has been said by designers a plenty.

[txgoldrush]

Lavits75 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

The part with Garrus on the ship wasn't deep-seated at all. He tells you the choice he was faced with and you can reassure or put him down. So, so, so deep.

And what exactly did you expect from the very FIRST installment of the series with the very FIRST introduction of the characters. In ME1 you hadn't built those relationships yet. You hadn't become as close. The conversations would have been slightly dull and awkward. In ME3 after three years of fighting impossible odds, I would imagine that characters like Tali, Garrus, and Liara would have more than, "It's nice to see you," "Come back later," and "Sorry, I've got some calibrations to run."

You really do not get what I am saying do you....

When TW2 first introduced Roche, a new character, he was not talking codex entry where you could question about his past....hell, you do not interact with him much in the game anyway outside of plot...but the STORY fleshes him out, NOT the conversations with him.

Bioware used to do characters, ME1 included, in a crude unnatural manner wihere the lesser party members were not important to the plot, instead of having character development through the plot, iis forced into talking codex roles, where the writers were too lazy to let the plot flesh out, left it to the characters. Look at Jade Empire for example...

ME1 was the same way, carried the same faults as older Bioware games.

Nevermind that ME3's shorter conversations show MORE character development than ME1's talking codex. Really does Tali even develop AT ALL in ME1? Nope.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 31 mars 2012 - 09:30 .

[Lavits75]

ME2>ME1>ME3

[Reorte]

Lavits75 wrote...

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 think that that's my biggest gripe with ME3 aside from the ending, but to be quite honest it's possibly because I was expecting too much. It's the end of the series and the last I'll see of characters I've come to know and love (too literally in some cases, to the extent that I probably need help, or at least a bit more fresh air), so I really wanted a lot of good, not necssarily plot-realted one-to-ones with them.

Stepping back, ME1 wound up rather tedious with all the Mako quests involving the same three buildings on largely featureless planets but they did give it a much bigger and wider feeling than either ME2 or 3. I wouldn't say that that made it rushed, just that there probably wasn't the time to give them more variety. It's a pity because even a little more variety could've helped so much (Bring Down The Sky reused a lot and I loved that).

The whole item / omnigel thing became a chore, and overall I actually prefer ME2's approach - the guns at least all felt different, not just restatted versions of the same thing. Pity about squad armout though.

I would've liked more openess and exploration in 3 but to make it seem feasible would've required a complete rethink of the Reapers.

[Solmanian]

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.

 One of the biggest plot holes in the MEverse for me, is why the hell is shepard draggging that poor asari girl on combat missions? She has litaraly no combat experience, and considering the asari culture it'll be like drafting a ten year and sending it to 'nam, and sticking a gun in his hand and telling him to go kill his mom... I cant believe people complain about the ME3 ending, when nobody explained how a helpless girl with a thing for archeology became one of the most dangerous people in the galaxy. Is shepard like looking at his team and says: "hmm, who should I take? I got a couple of marines, an ex-cop, a merc with an inferiority/superiority complex, and oh yeah, that girl with the mommy issues we picked up on the last trip! lets bring her with us as we drop into a war zone! I'm sure she'll do some damage to those geth tanks". The only mission I took her one was noveria, for the confrotation with mommy. But everything else? why bother? for her expertise in dealing with pirates and charging krogans?

[CombustiblePanda]

The OP needs to stop ignoring certain arguments, I've seen many strong points being made and the OP just brushes them off or pretends they don't exist.

Oh, and needs to stop stating opinions as facts

[Lavits75]

txgoldrush wrote...

Lavits75 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

The part with Garrus on the ship wasn't deep-seated at all. He tells you the choice he was faced with and you can reassure or put him down. So, so, so deep.

And what exactly did you expect from the very FIRST installment of the series with the very FIRST introduction of the characters. In ME1 you hadn't built those relationships yet. You hadn't become as close. The conversations would have been slightly dull and awkward. In ME3 after three years of fighting impossible odds, I would imagine that characters like Tali, Garrus, and Liara would have more than, "It's nice to see you," "Come back later," and "Sorry, I've got some calibrations to run."

You really do not get what I am saying do you....

When TW2 first introduced Roche, a new character, he was not talking codex entry where you could question about his past....hell, you do not interact with him much in the game anyway outside of plot...but the STORY fleshes him out, NOT the conversations with him.

Bioware used to do characters, MEW1 included, in a crude unnatural manner wihere the lesser party members were not important to the plot, instead of having character development through the plot, iis forced into talking codex roles, where the writers were too lazy to let the plot flesh out, left it to the characters. Look at Jade Empire for example...

ME1 was the same way, carried the same faults as older Bioware games.

Nevermind that ME3's shorter conversations show MORE character development than ME1's talking codex. Really does Tali even develop AT ALL in ME1? Nope.

You're not getting what I'M saying. ME3 doesn't develop Tali. ME2 did that job. ME3 doesn't have better character development because all characters from the past two games are fully developed. Their philosophy for the third installment? New characters be damned. Any new character in ME3 had zero development. Old characters were developed previously.

Why did that scene with Garrus and the bottles even work? Because of the vents of ME1 and ME2. Why did the part about ruthless calculations or his new leadership position make sense? Because of what happened in the past two games. How was he able to make those hard choices? Because of your influence and advice in the past two games. I distinctly remember talking to Garrus in ME1 and giving him advice on how to make choices and how not to let your hatred get in the way. ME3 didn't make Garrus into who he was. The other two games did.

[txgoldrush]

CombustiblePanda wrote...

The OP needs to stop ignoring certain arguments, I've seen many strong points being made and the OP just brushes them off or pretends they don't exist.

Oh, and needs to stop stating opinions as facts

bla bla bla

And stop defending ME1 through nostalgia glasses....

fans want RPG elements for the sake of them, no matter if it can hurt the story and the writing because of it, or even the gameplay.

And how is cut and paste NOT rushed?

All I hear is excuses.

[Lavits75]

Solmanian 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.

 One of the biggest plot holes in the MEverse for me, is why the hell is shepard draggging that poor asari girl on combat missions? She has litaraly no combat experience, and considering the asari culture it'll be like drafting a ten year and sending it to 'nam, and sticking a gun in his hand and telling him to go kill his mom... I cant believe people complain about the ME3 ending, when nobody explained how a helpless girl with a thing for archeology became one of the most dangerous people in the galaxy. Is shepard like looking at his team and says: "hmm, who should I take? I got a couple of marines, an ex-cop, a merc with an inferiority/superiority complex, and oh yeah, that girl with the mommy issues we picked up on the last trip! lets bring her with us as we drop into a war zone! I'm sure she'll do some damage to those geth tanks". The only mission I took her one was noveria, for the confrotation with mommy. But everything else? why bother? for her expertise in dealing with pirates and charging krogans?

The Asari are clearly developed as a people with powerful biotics. Yoiu think Liara, with all those trips to dangerous planets, with all the biotics, couldn't handle herself in a fight? You're looking at her as a weak girl, which is a narrow-minded point of view

[JackN7]

ME1>>>>ME2>ME3

[txgoldrush]

Lavits75 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Lavits75 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

The part with Garrus on the ship wasn't deep-seated at all. He tells you the choice he was faced with and you can reassure or put him down. So, so, so deep.

And what exactly did you expect from the very FIRST installment of the series with the very FIRST introduction of the characters. In ME1 you hadn't built those relationships yet. You hadn't become as close. The conversations would have been slightly dull and awkward. In ME3 after three years of fighting impossible odds, I would imagine that characters like Tali, Garrus, and Liara would have more than, "It's nice to see you," "Come back later," and "Sorry, I've got some calibrations to run."

You really do not get what I am saying do you....

When TW2 first introduced Roche, a new character, he was not talking codex entry where you could question about his past....hell, you do not interact with him much in the game anyway outside of plot...but the STORY fleshes him out, NOT the conversations with him.

Bioware used to do characters, MEW1 included, in a crude unnatural manner wihere the lesser party members were not important to the plot, instead of having character development through the plot, iis forced into talking codex roles, where the writers were too lazy to let the plot flesh out, left it to the characters. Look at Jade Empire for example...

ME1 was the same way, carried the same faults as older Bioware games.

Nevermind that ME3's shorter conversations show MORE character development than ME1's talking codex. Really does Tali even develop AT ALL in ME1? Nope.

You're not getting what I'M saying. ME3 doesn't develop Tali. ME2 did that job. ME3 doesn't have better character development because all characters from the past two games are fully developed. Their philosophy for the third installment? New characters be damned. Any new character in ME3 had zero development. Old characters were developed previously.

Why did that scene with Garrus and the bottles even work? Because of the vents of ME1 and ME2. Why did the part about ruthless calculations or his new leadership position make sense? Because of what happened in the past two games. How was he able to make those hard choices? Because of your influence and advice in the past two games. I distinctly remember talking to Garrus in ME1 and giving him advice on how to make choices and how not to let your hatred get in the way. ME3 didn't make Garrus into who he was. The other two games did.

Scenes like these DEVELOP an character FAR more than talking codex moments....



Face it, Bioware SUCKED at character development in the past because their need to use talking codex over natural development from the plot. Its okay for a character to talk about what he or she feels after a plot event, thats not talking codex, what is talking codex is revealing ones past in a forced manner, having the character describe storye elements when showing them through the plot would be far better, and actual character development through conversations instead of plot.

Look at KOTOR, Bastila and Carth were the only characters that really developed through the plot, same with Dawn Star and Zu in Jade Empire. And really only Alistair developed through the plot in DAO, Leliana for DLC. Because why? Bioware instead of using these characters naturally in how they related to the plot, makes them just talk buddies. Newer Bioware isn't doing this as much. Yes, there are less dialogue options, but more quality dialogue instead.

[Lavits75]

CombustiblePanda wrote...

The OP needs to stop ignoring certain arguments, I've seen many strong points being made and the OP just brushes them off or pretends they don't exist.

Oh, and needs to stop stating opinions as facts

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nogthwai]

I don't like ME1 that much; I played it on release, but got quite bored after a short amount of time. I only finished it a year later.

As it stand now, ME2 is the best ME Game for me, but only because ME3 fails so hard at the ending; if they ever fix them, I'd probably rate ME3 higher than ME2. Let us all be honest; the RPG Element of ME1 didn't really work out that much. While it had an Inventory and different Items, it was complete redundant by the time you figured out how to benfit the most from it. The Gameplay itself was pretty unbalanced (the hardest parts are at the beginning of the Game, it gets easier with every Level) and the skill system was a complete mess; some skills are completely broken. So the "game" part of ME1 was pretty, pretty horrible.

The Story was more or less okay, I guess, but the sidequests were a chore. Most of the Dungeons were reused and there was very little actual content in any sidequest. The Bdts DLC was quite okay.

[txgoldrush]

Lavits75 wrote...

CombustiblePanda wrote...

The OP needs to stop ignoring certain arguments, I've seen many strong points being made and the OP just brushes them off or pretends they don't exist.

Oh, and needs to stop stating opinions as facts

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

character development > character interactivity in importance

FACT