255 réponses à ce sujet

[Aeowyn]

78stonewobble wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

Uh, Mass Effect 2 is the worst game in the series, and "nostalgia" won't make me change my mind about it. I'm one of those "idiots" who think that ME1 is the best one in the series.

ME3 was alright, but it was too rushed, too much rushed writing which makes no sense, too much autodialogue, too many cutscenes, too much Gears.

ME1 love? Thats just "nostalgia".

Not sure if that's sarcasm or not. But it's not nostalgia. I've played ME1 more than any other game in the series and keep going back to it.

jreezy wrote...

Aeowyn wrote...

Uh, Mass
Effect 2 is the worst game in the series, and "nostalgia" won't make me
change my mind about it. I'm one of those "idiots" who think that ME1 is
the best one in the series.

ME3 was alright, but it was too
rushed, too much rushed writing which makes no sense, too much
autodialogue, too many cutscenes, too much Gears.

Off topic: Your avatar is pure win. Padok Wiks>Mass Effect 3 Mordin, no joke.

Haha thanks. I do wonder if Patrick Weekes has the same facial expression when he thinks about krogan mating.

Modifié par Aeowyn, 09 avril 2012 - 11:48 .

[voteDC]

For me the first game is the best. That's not nostalgia speaking as I'm playing it again now and it feels as fresh to me as the first time I played it.

Yes it has its problems, texture pop-in and clunky inventory being two, but the story just flows so well. Everything feels connected, missions are given to you through conversation or exploration, it all feels like one cohesive universe.

In the two sequels however I never felt that. While individual story elements were as good as they'd ever been they didn't really feel connected to the whole, it was if I was playing a series of DLC missions rather than those included in the game. Missions were just handed to you without any effort.

Modifié par voteDC, 09 avril 2012 - 11:54 .

[Cyne]

I loved ME3 for its dark quality. There was a distinctly disturbing/haunted vibe all throughout the game, which was not there in ME2. It felt more personal. I think ME3 was more a work of art, as opposed to ME2 which was much more just a video game. However, it was easier to role-play in ME2 due to the lack of auto-dialogue, which I grew to hate. It instantly took me out of the game. The scenes in which Shephard got surprisingly emotional were the exception.
I also liked the characters and character development of ME2 more. It seemed like Shephard was very invested and had a lot of influence over his crew, which made it easy to get attached to them. I loved that in ME2, your actions decided the fate of many of your crew mates. You could actual *command* your crew to do this and that, at critical plot moments! If only that level of authority was offered to Shephard in ME3, perhaps then the trilogy would have ended on a less bizarre note.

Also, the Normandy looked cooler in ME2.
I loved EDI though.

As for ME1, it's a gem of a game. The concepts are so original, and the first time I realized I'd be commanding the Normandy and be able to fly all over the galaxy, I was thrilled Lol. The novelty wore off a bit in the later games. Major props to ME 1 for giving birth the entire franchise. Is it better than the others? Nah. It's very memorable though. You can easily tell the developers put a lot of heart into it.

Modifié par Cyne, 09 avril 2012 - 12:10 .

[Nauks]

ME1 is my personal favourite, since it's the original, and the one out of the 3 I've played the most.
It just opens up the ME universe in such a brilliant and engaging way.

ME2 was a perfect sequel, did mostly everything right, and improved the game in a way that felt more like next gen than a sequel on the same console, the Empire Strikes Back of the ME series if you will.

ME3 did a lot of things wrong, lack of hub worlds (and the hub we do have feels more like Kirkwall mk2 than anything else), lack of real side-quests, squad character developments and so on. (no option to holster weapons anymore )
And of course, an ending that ruins the entire game, as well as the 2 games prior.

When if the indoctrination plot turns out to be true, ME3 will transform into something else entirely, with huge possibilities of being the perfect finalé to the series.

[Tirigon]

I suppose it is because of the ending. Cant really judge though; for me ME3 was actually better than ME2, although - thanks to the end - only very little.

Anyways, both are vastly inferior to ME1.

[Sir Bum]

Because the ending doesn't ruin the whole series for me.

[SynheKatze]

ME2 feels like a complete game. No rushed narrative, no rushed development, no traces of 'what could have been', more side missions, more variety in said missions, more balanced difficulty levels (Insanity is mindboggingly boring now), better dialogue...

Shall I continue?

[KrazyKiko]

Mmw04014 wrote...

Jerjud45 wrote...

My personal favorite is Mass Effect 1 to be honest.

Me too. Sometimes I wish I could pretend that Mass Effect had just stopped there. Ah well.

ME1 is my fav, too.  Talk about hub worlds to explore!

[bluewolv1970]

because it is

[Noelemahc]

For me, ME2~ME3<ME1. The first one was unarguably the best. For all of its glitchy poorly ported unfixed-to-this-day glory, it also had the best music, best immersion, best love scenes, some of the best character development (ME2 only had real merit in developing Jack and Garrus, the other characters were mostly static, their development happening off-screen between 1 and 2 or between 2 and 3; while ME3 only developed Tali, Legion, Garrus and Javik; for all the others the development is once again off-screen, on-screen they are static), real if a tad limited planetary exploration, and, of course, it felt a lot more RPGish. It's ending and overall impression makes you want to look at the stars in the night sky with hope, apprehension and that tingly shiver running up your spine as if caressed by a gentle lover.

ME2 tossed out the number-crunching and inventory and the Mako, the sex, the electronica, the faux-retro style (I fully support the Decades Of Design concept -- ME1 is the 1980s, ME2 1990s and ME3 is the 2000s -- as it is a good way to explain all the inexplicable design changes), threw in more characters - most of which were brilliant, don't get me wrong, just lacking significant depth - and meandered a lot with the plot. It was never about the Destination as much as ME1 was, it wasn't even about the Journey, it was about the Companions. It does, however, retain The Hope and the Love For the Stars, even though you will now more cautiously look at the night sky, and get not shivers but goosebumps.

Similarly, ME3 tried to return partway to the roots - the weapon mods, the smaller number of squadmates, the (failed) attempt at restoring sexual and same-sex elements, the Destination. It is mostly about The Journey, because the Destination turns out to be a one-way trip to Plotholeville.

It does a lot of things awesomely, and resolutions to most of the mid-game plots are cool, but at the same time it is severely railroaded, discards all your decisions in what is functionally the Final Dungeon and all in all seems to focus too much on violence, gore and death, forgetting that the things that made the first two so enjoyable - The Destination and The Companions are as important as The Journey. Thankfully, it did not ruin my Love For the Stars, but I am an astronomy nut, and I might be looking too much into it =)

TL;DR: ME2 and ME3 are equally good because they both squandered most of their potential away, ME3 far more so than ME2, because it had much more going for it at the start; so ME1 comes out on top simply because it has a higher percentage of Expectations Fulfilled (about 130%, because surpassing KotOR was easy after KotOR2 showed how to do it, and surpassing KotOR2 was easy because it, too, had a frelled-up ending; conversely ME2 has 90% (Tali's Unreveal, the lack of sex, the lack of exploration, the reduced immersion because of elevators and airlocks being turned into teleporters; ME3 is about 75% because of railroading, lack of exploration, Tali's Second Unreveal, lack of closure, lack of real ending, Kai Leng being based on Deception and not Ascension, among other things).

TL;DR was TL;DR:
ME2=ME3, ME1 much better.

[Daforth]

To add a statistical fact to the argument, I checked my Steam fro gametimes:

Mass Effect 1: 247 hours played
Mass Effect 2: 712 hours played (thanks to GibbedSavegamEditor I made up many Sheaprds with edited ME1 background to import into ME2. And I saved 19 different playthroughs for ME3, for what, duh ...)

Now, here is ME3. I played through 4 times ~100 hours altogether, and now I don't feel to play it again at all. I play the MP time to time, but the SP sadly does not inspire me at all. I played 4 of my 19 saves and I simply don't feel the mood to play the rest. And that says all.

However I still think/feel that ME1 was the best in the series, but ME2 was better than ME3 as a game, despite ME3 introduced some better gameplay than ME2.

[ReshyShira]

Why? Because it follows the trend of all trilogies.

First game makes the money.

Second game uses the money to expand on things.

Third game ruins the trilogy hence why it was only planned as one.

[Aeowyn]

James_Raynor wrote...

Why? Because it follows the trend of all trilogies.

First game makes the money.

Second game uses the money to expand on things.

Third game ruins the trilogy hence why it was only planned as one.

Mass Effect was always planned as a trilogy.

[PiEman]

Banelash wrote...

I'm gonna have to stop you on the ending at least. The ending of ME2, is in the middle of the trilogy, so its understandable that it has to be open ended.

Now if you are talking about the final cutscene, ME2 still wins because its cutscenes are varied based on who died. I even have one where shepard is dead. And it reflects your decisions, unlike ME3 where it didn't reflect a single of your decisions. all that build up of EMS, you still get the same thing even if you try to not get high EMS. At the most you can't choose synth. Not convinced? Try this. Ignore the genophage cure, kill mordin. Then when you get confronted by wrex, he will say he is pulling out the troops and letting humans go extinct. Now look at the final mission. oh look, EMS still has krogans and cutscenes in the missions still has krogans.

Second, the amazing part of ME2 was its final mission.

Once you go through the omega 4 relay, that is where ME2 shined. All your loyalty missions, all your upgrades actually helps in keeping your squad and you alive. If you wanna compare ME3 final mission in London, to ME2 suicide mission, it is obvious ME2 wins hands down.

Yes, thank you.

I didn't mind the ending to Mass Effect 2, because (as he said) it was in the middle of a trilogy. The last decision was just one of many, and did not completely void all previous decisions in that game and the one before it. And, as he said, the cutscenes still aren't the same afterwards, and actually change based on your actions in the game. Rather than red/blue/green explosion no matter what you did (with slight variations on how much blows up in the red one).

[Ck213]

I loved ME1 for the whole game experiencing.
I loved ME2 mainly for the characters.

Having a lot of my favorite characters in cameos and being off camera didn't help endear me to ME3. Vega was OK, but I would replace him in a heartbeat with an  ME2 character. EDI was the highlight ME3 characterwise for me. Not knowing how these charcters were impacted by the world after Shep's choices made the game go out on a whimper. The game has great moments, but it was't a satisfying experience for me.

[PiEman]

James_Raynor wrote...

Why? Because it follows the trend of all trilogies.

First game makes the money.

Second game uses the money to expand on things.

Third game ruins the trilogy hence why it was only planned as one.

What do you mean "the trend of all trilogies"?

Did Return of the King ruin LOTR? Did Return of the Jedi ruin the original Star Wars trilogy (yes, I know people got a stick up their ass about Ewoks, but I mean overall)? Did The Last Crusade ruin Indiana Jones? Did Breaking Dawn suddenly make Stephenie Meyer a good author? 

No, planned trilogies normally don't end up like Mass Effect did. Especially not when it was supposed to end in a groundbreaking way that incorporated all of your previous decisions, instead of ignoring them.

[Zjarcal]

ME3 > ME2 >>> ME1 for me.

Then again I've never been one to follow the general consensus.

[Wise Men]

I'm not sure why some people think ME2 is a better game.  I find it difficult to go back to ME2 after playing 3. The gunplay, character movement, powers, weapons, sound effects are much better IMO.  I also like the upgrade system for the weapons and powers.  Not to mention, I think that the narrative is stronger in ME3.  I like how they pulled all of the threads together.

[Ericus]

brett0560 wrote...

I think there are a few reasons some people like ME2 more than ME3:
1. They hate the ME3 ending.
2. They may like the ME2 companions more (legion, and thane anyone?).
3. They liked visiting and exploring more hub worlds, like omega, not just the citadel.
4. They probably liked the suicide run for ME2 end game, where your choices actually had a huge emotional impact (not saying this isn't also in ME3).
5. This may just be me, but ME2 seemed to have more content.

As for me, I like both equally, and since I haven't finished 3 yet (right at the end, don't want to beat it yet) I shouldn't judge.

This, and the sense of hope for the future that still permeated ME2.

[Noelemahc]

This, and the sense of hope for the future that still permeated ME2.

Exactly. Most of the hate is the railroading and lack of coherent ending in ME3. On its own, it's an awesome game to be remembered fondly, but as the last part of a trilogy whose protagonist is not supposed to ever return as a playable character, it sucks harder than a black-hole-powered vacuum cleaner.

[Khayness]

Well, to me, in ME2 the narrative was closer to gameplay.

All the Collector missions are pretty damn good, and they are quite challenging in terms of gameplay: you face vastly different situations and you have to adapt to them. In Horizon, you engage the Collectors for the first time, the Collector Cruiser adds the hexagon flying pads, the Suicide Mission mixes those up with the timed vent tube run and the swarm barriers. Those excelently add to the feeling that you are indeed fighting a powerful and unknown enemy.

In ME3, most of the priority missions were about spectacle rather than challenging immersive fights for the fate of the galaxy. In ME2 you have to go through an awesome mission just to destroy a derelict Reaper, in ME3 you aim and fire, or push a few buttons, sit back and enjoy the cutscenes.

If weren't for the personal touch of an imported universe 5 years in the making, I'd say ME2 is better, even if the RPG elements are lacking compared to ME3.

Modifié par Khayness, 09 avril 2012 - 02:54 .

[Trevarion]

One of the most important reasons people played Mass effect 2 and 3 is not because of Shepard, the combat or even the reapers. Its because of the squadmates. And ME2 did a much better job digging into your team then ME3 did.Traynor, Edi, Vega etc. didnt really have much of a background story, you never really got to "know" them better aside for a few lines. The only one of the new characters which i thought was done well was Cortez. In ME2 you had 2 missions for almost every teammate themselves, yes those side missions didnt add anything to the main story line but the main story line isn't the reason people play ME. The squadmates are.

[Lenimph]

Zjarcal wrote...

ME3 > ME2 >>> ME1 for me.

Then again I've never been one to follow the general consensus.

This