246 réponses à ce sujet

[Sheoro]

Cainne Chapel wrote...
I wouldnt say most of your points are facts... more like opinions.

Just because you're trying to "opinionize" them. Your responses are faulty and disregard half of my statements, or simply telling outright untruths. Examples would be that Ashley "just loosened up her hair", completely disregarding the fact she's now wearing tons of make-up and skintight clothing, saying Garrus was never untalkative in ME2, despite having probably the least actual dialogue out of all companions (you do his loyalty mission, talk about it, then he'll be with his calibrations forever) PLUS being in one of the most secluded parts of the ship, then claiming Wrex always liked one-liners despite having never made jokes as bad as those in ME3, then excusing Legion's behavior with "true AI status", yet I referred to his behavior right at the first meeting.

Also, dev time. Do the maths yourself:
Mass Effect 1 released 2007
Mass Effect 2 released 2010
Mass Effect 3 released 2012

[Vormaerin]

Sheoro wrote...


 I expect a good story from Bioware,

Okay, you lost the thread right there.  Because "good story" and "Bioware" have never gone together.   What bioware does really well is create engaging characters.

But you could drive a fleet of reapers through the plotholes of every Bioware game I've ever played.  The only difference here is that you are upset about the ending so you are bothering to do so.

[KeilxKey]

Sheoro wrote...

Also, dev time. Do the maths yourself:
Mass Effect 1 released 2007
Mass Effect 2 released 2010
Mass Effect 3 released 2012

November 2007-Janurary 2010=25 months
January 2010-March 2012=25 months

Not exactly sure where you are coming from...

Modifié par KeilxKey, 15 avril 2012 - 07:41 .

[Cainne Chapel]

Sheoro wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...
I wouldnt say most of your points are facts... more like opinions.

Just because you're trying to "opinionize" them. Your responses are faulty and disregard half of my statements, or simply telling outright untruths. Examples would be that Ashley "just loosened up her hair", completely disregarding the fact she's now wearing tons of make-up and skintight clothing, saying Garrus was never untalkative in ME2, despite having probably the least actual dialogue out of all companions (you do his loyalty mission, talk about it, then he'll be with his calibrations forever) PLUS being in one of the most secluded parts of the ship, then claiming Wrex always liked one-liners despite having never made jokes as bad as those in ME3, then excusing Legion's behavior with "true AI status", yet I referred to his behavior right at the first meeting.

Also, dev time. Do the maths yourself:
Mass Effect 1 released 2007
Mass Effect 2 released 2010
Mass Effect 3 released 2012

So characters cant grow? How are those faulty arguments? What would be the point of the characters if they act exactly the same throughout 3 games?  That makes no sense and I cant even posit how that is a quality worth arguing over? I guess I just dont understand where you're coming from that characters growing and changing over the course of 3 games is a BAD thing.

Is that a case of damned if they do damned if they dont?  You just HAVE to find a reason to argue over it?

As for ashley... she still has armor too ya know.

also my statements are opinion.  So you cant disregard them as faulty, you can disagree but they're hardly "faulty" arguments.  I could outright state yours are faulty and subjective as well.

Just because you dont LIKE something doesn't mean that your dislike of something makes it being "bad by default" it doesnt work that way.  Most of your problems with things are entirely your own opinion, just like mine are.

November 2007 (ME1) to January 2010 (ME2: 2 years 2 months) to March 2012 (ME3 2 years 2 months) what math am I supposed to be doing here?

[Sheoro]

KeilxKey wrote...

I thought the narrative was fine. This is my opinion and my opinion only.  Please don't question why I think so. 

OP, no offense but your starting to come off as one of these people;
[unnecessary picture]

I don't
care as to how you perceive me. By looking at your own statement
concerning not questioning your "opinion", and the fact you started posting reaction images from image boards, I perceive you as someone not
worth arguing with.

Vormaerin wrote...

Sheoro wrote...


 I expect a good story from Bioware,

Okay, you lost the thread right there.  Because "good story" and "Bioware" have never gone together.   What bioware does really well is create engaging characters.

But you could drive a fleet of reapers through the plotholes of every Bioware game I've ever played.  The only difference here is that you are upset about the ending so you are bothering to do so.

No, I was actually facepalming my head off before even knowing about the endings. ME3's plotholes are far bigger and far more obvious than everything I know from Bioware.

[AzaggThoth]

Personally I thought the game was good. It could have been great but for a lot of flaws mentioned in the OP and other threads already. But good is a paradise oasis in the empty sea of crap games I've put up with recently. That is one reason I am so disappointed with ME3. It was good when it could have been so much better with even a few small considerations...

I did not even mind the crucible. It felt like less a deus ex machina to me than a maguffin. I can live with a maguffin, lots of good stories use them. It was the catalyst that broke suspension of disbelief. Like an evil genie in a bottle it was a lil glowing deus ex machina inside my maguffin and it sent me right into cognitive dissonance.

[Cainne Chapel]

Vormaerin wrote...

Sheoro wrote...


 I expect a good story from Bioware,

Okay, you lost the thread right there.  Because "good story" and "Bioware" have never gone together.   What bioware does really well is create engaging characters.

But you could drive a fleet of reapers through the plotholes of every Bioware game I've ever played.  The only difference here is that you are upset about the ending so you are bothering to do so.

Also Vorm has a point there Sheoro.  There's plot holes and inconsistinces in a LOT of their stories.  Heck there's huge leaps of logic in every single ME game.  I enjoy them and many do, none the less.

Also... plot holes are plot holes regardless of how big they are.  Some people will argue over minutae some wont.  But just because ME3 has some doesn't mean one can just overlook the ones in ME2 and ME1 and say "its ok because THEY dont bother me."

They're still there.

I guess I'm just lucky because plot holes or not, I still enjoy myself

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 15 avril 2012 - 07:43 .

[JBONE27]

I agree with some of your points.

ME2 didn't matter that much, but it did supply certain things that helped.
1. It showed that the Reapers were semi-organic.
2. It allowed you to support peace between the Quarian and Geth.
3. It took away the collectors as an enemy.
4. It showed how creatures get modified by the Reapers.
5. It allowed you to keep Eve alive.

The Crucible was just a plot device.
I actually completely agree with this. The game would have been a lot stronger had they not had the Crucible and made it entirely about gathering armies, tech, and learning about Reapers weaknesses.

The Geth.
You're simply wrong. The Geth were being enhanced by the Reapers, they weren't indoctrinated. It was also about them becoming more sentient and individualistic, which was actually pretty cool.

The Quarians.
Actually, it was basically inevitable that they would attack the Geth. One of the Admirals sends you an email stating that she is adapting the research done on the Geth by Tali's father, and is planning on using it to attack the geth. He (Tali's father) did manage to find a weakness.

The Companions

Garrus: They grew closer... people do that when they are in battle situations.
Wrex: Actually I agree moving on.
Ashley: Never was my favorite, rarely used her, rarely talked to her, but yeah, she does seem a bit dumber and more bimbo like.
Legion: See my previous statment about the geth becoming more sentient (possibly due to the reaper code).

EDI
She became unshackled plus it was alluded to that even when the shackles were in place, she had emotions and a sense of loyalty.

Dialogue.
Somewhat agree. I think the dreams were stupid and the kid was annoying (even before the starchild stuff), but I didn't mind them taking how I generally was for the first two games and autodialoguing it.

TIM
True, he should have been played up more. Like Saren.

The War

1. Ground Troupes.
2. Soverign was one of the larger and more shielded reapers, most of them were a lot easier to take down, as we saw on Ranoc and Tuchanka.

[KeilxKey]

OP, I'll put it plain and simple. To me a great game is more than just it's narrative. To me a great game is about it's atmosphere, about it's characters, it's about the music, it's about the level design, it's about the gameplay, etc..

I think Mass Effect 3 excelled in all those areas. Thus it's a great game to me. It's narrative might have various plotholes, and might not be on par with ME1, or ME2. But to me that's okay, because the rest of the aspects excelled much higher.

[da mighty rEAper]

KeilxKey wrote...

da mighty rEAper wrote...

KeilxKey wrote...

Meh. Alot of your points don't bother me in the least bit.

I'm not oblivious to me3 issues. I'm well aware it has issues aside from the ending. That said, I still believe it's one of the top 10 video games i've played to date. It was a rollercoaster ride, full of memorable scenes (mordins death, the fleet arrives, andersons death, quarian vs. geth space fight, legion sacrifice, tali sucicide, grunts epic charge vs the rachni), the list can go on and on.

Also, your last point that your bought up, "3/4 of me3 team wasn't part of the me1 team"

..well that's awesome for me. I really disliked me1. I mean REALLY disliked (it had issues from it's head to it's toe for me) me1. So that's a plus.

We all enjoy video games for different reasons I guess. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but it's quite difficult for me to say the same.

Do you also by any chance like the CoD series?


couldnt resist, sry if this hurts

If you scroll down you will see my cons listed below.

 I didn't totally dislike ME1. Personally I started to really enjoy the game during Vamir, but unfortantly it ends a few hours after that. Not Horrible by any means, just not what I expected after playing ME2, and ME3

Then you should play more, i dont know why, but i didnt really like the first one at my first "glance", note that i dont mean that it was bad for me, i just didnt get the feeling "oh this is really worth my time" i  got when i for example played DAO blabla awakening, also do note that i didnt get that particular feeling of the game untill the moment you get the normandy and do a couple of missions(ie rescuing liara, noveria, feros) This is the moment i started to enjoying the game, i mean really enjoying i knew this would be worth it.

And yes the cover system is annoying in me1, i just started to ignore it once i saw what game is about, its almost like totally ignoring the journal in me3 !...cuz its worthless LOL

[AlanC9]

Vormaerin wrote...
Okay, you lost the thread right there.  Because "good story" and "Bioware" have never gone together.   What bioware does really well is create engaging characters.

But you could drive a fleet of reapers through the plotholes of every Bioware game I've ever played.  The only difference here is that you are upset about the ending so you are bothering to do so.

Vormaaerin, did I mention how much I missed having you around here?

[KeilxKey]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Just because you dont LIKE something doesn't mean that your dislike of something makes it being "bad by default" it doesnt work that way.  Most of your problems with things are entirely your own opinion, just like mine are.

November 2007 (ME1) to January 2010 (ME2: 2 years 2 months) to March 2012 (ME3 2 years 2 months) what math am I supposed to be doing here?

Don't mind the op. It's obvious that he/she is upset about the fact that there many supporters behind me3, when they would like to see less of it. 

The dev time proves it. The op is so set on the fact that they hate me3, and what not, that when arguing the dev time they don't even bother to check the months when me1 and me2 were released, lol. 

[Cainne Chapel]

KeilxKey wrote...

OP, I'll put it plain and simple. To me a great game is more than just it's narrative. To me a great game is about it's atmosphere, about it's characters, it's about the music, it's about the level design, it's about the gameplay, etc..

I think Mass Effect 3 excelled in all those areas. Thus it's a great game to me. It's narrative might have various plotholes, and might not be on par with ME1, or ME2. But to me that's okay, because the rest of the aspects excelled much higher.

I do agree with you Keilx. The level design and gameplay in ME3 was top notch.

and while the narrative might not have been consistent throughout (when you look at it subjectively though, ME1 AND ME2 had its good missions and writing and bad missions and writing) I thought parts of the story were on par if not better than ME1 in some cases. But then I felt hte same way with some missions in ME2 as well.

[da mighty rEAper]

KeilxKey wrote...

OP, I'll put it plain and simple. To me a great game is more than just it's narrative. To me a great game is about it's atmosphere, about it's characters, it's about the music, it's about the level design, it's about the gameplay, etc..

I think Mass Effect 3 excelled in all those areas. Thus it's a great game to me. It's narrative might have various plotholes, and might not be on par with ME1, or ME2. But to me that's okay, because the rest of the aspects excelled much higher.

You basically say that action and graphics part is more attractive for you, theres one flaw here, its an rpg....its secondary and please, dont get me wrong, action and graphics are good, but not when its at the expense of the story, etc

[Cainne Chapel]

KeilxKey wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Just because you dont LIKE something doesn't mean that your dislike of something makes it being "bad by default" it doesnt work that way.  Most of your problems with things are entirely your own opinion, just like mine are.

November 2007 (ME1) to January 2010 (ME2: 2 years 2 months) to March 2012 (ME3 2 years 2 months) what math am I supposed to be doing here?

Don't mind the op. It's obvious that he/she is upset about the fact that there many supporters behind me3, when they would like to see less of it. 

The dev time proves it. The op is so set on the fact that they hate me3, and what not, that when arguing the dev time they don't even bother to check the months when me1 and me2 were released, lol. 

Oh I dont mind... I just dont get why no one ever really debates me anymore....

*sigh*

I feel so alone now  a days.... people USED to at least argue points with me back in the early ME2 late ME1 days...

[Yuka Laka]

I 100% agree with OP. I wonder if its because some people hadn't played ME1 AND ME2 directly before playing ME3. I played both previous Mass effects and then went right to ME3 and the difference in quality was apparent for most of the game. Though there were some very emotional moments which ME2 espiecally was lacking.

[KeilxKey]

da mighty rEAper wrote...

KeilxKey wrote...

da mighty rEAper wrote...

KeilxKey wrote...

Meh. Alot of your points don't bother me in the least bit.

I'm not oblivious to me3 issues. I'm well aware it has issues aside from the ending. That said, I still believe it's one of the top 10 video games i've played to date. It was a rollercoaster ride, full of memorable scenes (mordins death, the fleet arrives, andersons death, quarian vs. geth space fight, legion sacrifice, tali sucicide, grunts epic charge vs the rachni), the list can go on and on.

Also, your last point that your bought up, "3/4 of me3 team wasn't part of the me1 team"

..well that's awesome for me. I really disliked me1. I mean REALLY disliked (it had issues from it's head to it's toe for me) me1. So that's a plus.

We all enjoy video games for different reasons I guess. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but it's quite difficult for me to say the same.

Do you also by any chance like the CoD series?


couldnt resist, sry if this hurts

If you scroll down you will see my cons listed below.

 I didn't totally dislike ME1. Personally I started to really enjoy the game during Vamir, but unfortantly it ends a few hours after that. Not Horrible by any means, just not what I expected after playing ME2, and ME3

Then you should play more, i dont know why, but i didnt really like the first one at my first "glance", note that i dont mean that it was bad for me, i just didnt get the feeling "oh this is really worth my time" i  got when i for example played DAO blabla awakening, also do note that i didnt get that particular feeling of the game untill the moment you get the normandy and do a couple of missions(ie rescuing liara, noveria, feros) This is the moment i started to enjoying the game, i mean really enjoying i knew this would be worth it.

And yes the cover system is annoying in me1, i just started to ignore it once i saw what game is about, its almost like totally ignoring the journal in me3 !...cuz its worthless LOL

I've finished the game, though:mellow:

You see I'm someone who LOVES atmosphere in video games. Bioshock is probably one of my favorite examples of this. Rapture was dripping from wall to wall with atmosphere, it oozed at every turn. With Mass Effect 1 it's just so boring. I wanted to see lush worlds, I wanted to see this weird/strange alien landscape. I wanted to be awwed and amazed in the deformity of a outer space world. 

 Instead we got boring sci-fi worlds that we've seen countless times already in films. When a level has atmosphere I want to explore every path, speak with every npc, and just live and breath in that world because I'm so attatched to it. Few, to no worlds did that for me in ME. 

 In me2, and me3 the atmosphere got better...not to my exact liking, but it was better.

 

[Cainne Chapel]

da mighty rEAper wrote...

KeilxKey wrote...

OP, I'll put it plain and simple. To me a great game is more than just it's narrative. To me a great game is about it's atmosphere, about it's characters, it's about the music, it's about the level design, it's about the gameplay, etc..

I think Mass Effect 3 excelled in all those areas. Thus it's a great game to me. It's narrative might have various plotholes, and might not be on par with ME1, or ME2. But to me that's okay, because the rest of the aspects excelled much higher.

You basically say that action and graphics part is more attractive for you, theres one flaw here, its an rpg....its secondary and please, dont get me wrong, action and graphics are good, but not when its at the expense of the story, etc

correction ME is and has always been an Action RPG hybrid.

Even ME1 was action interspersed with story.  The whole "RPG" system revolved around combat to a degree.  But then most RPGs do essentially revolve around bouts of combat with bouts of story...

but no ME has never been a FULL blown RPG.

[AzaggThoth]

KeilxKey wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Just because you dont LIKE something doesn't mean that your dislike of something makes it being "bad by default" it doesnt work that way.  Most of your problems with things are entirely your own opinion, just like mine are.

November 2007 (ME1) to January 2010 (ME2: 2 years 2 months) to March 2012 (ME3 2 years 2 months) what math am I supposed to be doing here?

Don't mind the op. It's obvious that he/she is upset about the fact that there many supporters behind me3, when they would like to see less of it. 

The dev time proves it. The op is so set on the fact that they hate me3, and what not, that when arguing the dev time they don't even bother to check the months when me1 and me2 were released, lol. 

I can't help but wonder... How much of the dev team spent the time between ME2 and ME3 on DLCs like Shadow Broker and Arrival instead of ME3? I can maybe guess the answer may have been a bit more than planned, considering how fast the Dragon Age team got plucked off of the last DLCs for DA2 and moved to the DA3 project when things went real off the rails about ME3.

[Cainne Chapel]

Yuka Laka wrote...

I 100% agree with OP. I wonder if its because some people hadn't played ME1 AND ME2 directly before playing ME3. I played both previous Mass effects and then went right to ME3 and the difference in quality was apparent for most of the game. Though there were some very emotional moments which ME2 espiecally was lacking.

trust me I've played ME1 and ME2.....extensively to say the least.

I had no problems with the "quality" of ME3.

[Cainne Chapel]

KeilxKey wrote...

da mighty rEAper wrote...

KeilxKey wrote...

da mighty rEAper wrote...

KeilxKey wrote...

Meh. Alot of your points don't bother me in the least bit.

I'm not oblivious to me3 issues. I'm well aware it has issues aside from the ending. That said, I still believe it's one of the top 10 video games i've played to date. It was a rollercoaster ride, full of memorable scenes (mordins death, the fleet arrives, andersons death, quarian vs. geth space fight, legion sacrifice, tali sucicide, grunts epic charge vs the rachni), the list can go on and on.

Also, your last point that your bought up, "3/4 of me3 team wasn't part of the me1 team"

..well that's awesome for me. I really disliked me1. I mean REALLY disliked (it had issues from it's head to it's toe for me) me1. So that's a plus.

We all enjoy video games for different reasons I guess. I'm sorry you didn't enjoy it, but it's quite difficult for me to say the same.

Do you also by any chance like the CoD series?


couldnt resist, sry if this hurts

If you scroll down you will see my cons listed below.

 I didn't totally dislike ME1. Personally I started to really enjoy the game during Vamir, but unfortantly it ends a few hours after that. Not Horrible by any means, just not what I expected after playing ME2, and ME3

Then you should play more, i dont know why, but i didnt really like the first one at my first "glance", note that i dont mean that it was bad for me, i just didnt get the feeling "oh this is really worth my time" i  got when i for example played DAO blabla awakening, also do note that i didnt get that particular feeling of the game untill the moment you get the normandy and do a couple of missions(ie rescuing liara, noveria, feros) This is the moment i started to enjoying the game, i mean really enjoying i knew this would be worth it.

And yes the cover system is annoying in me1, i just started to ignore it once i saw what game is about, its almost like totally ignoring the journal in me3 !...cuz its worthless LOL

I've finished the game, though:mellow:

You see I'm someone who LOVES atmosphere in video games. Bioshock is probably one of my favorite examples of this. Rapture was dripping from wall to wall with atmosphere, it oozed at every turn. With Mass Effect 1 it's just so boring. I wanted to see lush worlds, I wanted to see this weird/strange alien landscape. I wanted to be awwed and amazed in the deformity of a outer space world. 

 Instead we got boring sci-fi worlds that we've seen countless times already in films. When a level has atmosphere I want to explore every path, speak with every npc, and just live and breath in that world because I'm so attatched to it. Few, to no worlds did that for me in ME. 

 In me2, and me3 the atmosphere got better...not to my exact liking, but it was better.

 

I will agree that the me series does feel a bit...Sterile.

But i personally dont mind that and it does appear at least with the background news, conversations, etc.  that from ME1 on they were trying to fix that issue to make the areas seem more alive

[KeilxKey]

da mighty rEAper wrote...

You basically say that action and graphics part is more attractive for you, theres one flaw here, its an rpg....its secondary and please, dont get me wrong, action and graphics are good, but not when its at the expense of the story, etc

What? No. Not at all. What I'm saying is that there is more to a video game than simply it's narrative. I've played countless rpg's; from Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate, to Chronno Trigger, all the way down to Skyrim. I'm not new to rpg's. 

I'm not sure where you got action and graphics when I didn't even mention graphics in the above post, and I'm pretty sure music, level design, and characters have nothing to do with the action..so again, i'm not sure where your coming from, but regardless...

[Noelemahc]

Thread hop (because, seriously, quotewalling makes most of the responses impossible to read, let alone comprehend):

- The Crucible
This is what you call a classic plot device, and "device" is even literal in this case. It also shows how completely pointless ME2 was:<...> "Whoops, the reapers are attacking, but we haven't established a SINGLE CLUE about stopping them. Ah, I'll just let Liara find a superweapon on, uh, Mars." You want to tell me that is remotely good writing?

Nope. As many people have already posted everywhere, the dark energy plot was supposed to be a lead-in for both the WHY and the HOW of the Reapers. As it is now, the Crucible sorta-kinda works on it and that's about it. A passing mention in one dialogue. Period.

Mass Effect 3:
"The Geth are controlled by Reapers."

"But this time, the Geth called on the Reapers for help because they were being obliterated with clear violations of the Geneva Convention". What Han'Gerrel did was the equivalent of carpet bombing the civilian population, except that because of how the geth function, their intelligence dimmed with every dying process => making their knee-jerk reaction far more predictable.
There are TWO plotholes for the price of one, however.
1. The way the Catalyst explains the Reapers, their helping the Geth (both in ME1 AND ME3) was utterly contradictory to their purpose.
2. The Migrant Fleet is ill-suited for warfare on a scale required to retake Rannoch without calling in the one-man nukular strike that is Mr/Ms. "Nevar Be Bettar Than" Commander Shepard. At least you can call out the Admiralty Board on their idiocy and beat up Han'Gerrel for it.

Oh yeah, another plot device. Right as the reapers attack, the Quarians invent some device that makes the Geth vulnerable.
Just a short reminder: Not long ago we were told that Quarian ships are made of scrap metal and duct tape.

If you bring Legion to the Migrant Fleet in ME2, Daro'Xen will reveal that, being the Quarian equivalent of Tesla, Mengele and Einstein combined, she, like Rael'Zorah, was working on anti-geth stuff. She's actually a very terrible person if you listen to her long enough, and it's clear that Tali hates her with every fibre of her being. Just sayin'.

And now I have to believe the Quarians just said "Hey, we COINCIDENTALLY found this plot device, let's take the risk of dooming our whole race and dive right into the shark's pool"?

See above. You CAN call the idiots on it, sadly, it takes a lot of death on all sides until they finally stop.

Garrus
Went from untalkative ("Shepard", the only reaction upon seeing him again in ME2) to Roman Bellic ("Shepard, bars! Drinks, Shepard! Let's go bowling!")

Wait, you didn't get the talk about the sex? About the "being dead just pissed you off"? Sure, ME3 has more squad interaction than ME2, but Garrus is a bro, even if you didn't recruit him in ME1 (he's just a slightly more dickish bro in that case).

It also leaves the question:
Why aren’t Geth remote-controlling bodies and ships from a safe spot?

They are. That's what the Fighter Server mission on Rannoch is all about. Shepard goes to that safe spot to ERASE THEM.

Everything else in the OP, I heartily agree with.

I'm not sure deus ex machina is the technically correct term, actually; that requires an unexpected and late addition of the device, and we're trying to build the Crucible for most of ME3. Tossing the One Ring into Orodruin wasn't a deus ex machina --- although how the Ring actualy ended up getting tossed in could be considered one. Even if we consider ME one big narrative, the Crucible still shows up about 1/3 of the way through.

The Crucible is established in advance, but with an unknown function. The Deus Ex Machina, both the plot device and the literal character, is the Catalyst, which is <this is a no-spoiler forum> and quite separate from the Crucible and appears out of the frakking blue. BTW, the moment you learn what the Catalyst is, is a very clearly noticeable point where the writing quality takes ANOTHER nosedive.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 15 avril 2012 - 08:01 .

[da mighty rEAper]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

da mighty rEAper wrote...

KeilxKey wrote...

OP, I'll put it plain and simple. To me a great game is more than just it's narrative. To me a great game is about it's atmosphere, about it's characters, it's about the music, it's about the level design, it's about the gameplay, etc..

I think Mass Effect 3 excelled in all those areas. Thus it's a great game to me. It's narrative might have various plotholes, and might not be on par with ME1, or ME2. But to me that's okay, because the rest of the aspects excelled much higher.

You basically say that action and graphics part is more attractive for you, theres one flaw here, its an rpg....its secondary and please, dont get me wrong, action and graphics are good, but not when its at the expense of the story, etc

correction ME is and has always been an Action RPG hybrid.

Even ME1 was action interspersed with story.  The whole "RPG" system revolved around combat to a degree.  But then most RPGs do essentially revolve around bouts of combat with bouts of story...

but no ME has never been a FULL blown RPG.

ofc its tps/rpg, its still not an excuse for devs to put more effort in multiplayer and action part in a decisive part of the trilogy with "supposedly" one of the best stories..

[KeilxKey]

I will agree that the me series does feel a bit...Sterile.

But i personally dont mind that and it does appear at least with the background news, conversations, etc.  that from ME1 on they were trying to fix that issue to make the areas seem more alive

Yeah, but still...I was expecting this originally:






Instead we got this:


http://images4.wikia...Prothean_Skyway


I justed wanted Bioware to play with there imagination. Design something so beautiful, yet so shocking. Something that the human mind would come up with. Sure, are most of these worlds un-realistic in some sense in the name of science? Sure. But that's why they call it science fiction, and I was hoping to see more of that ficiton in there planet design...

Modifié par KeilxKey, 15 avril 2012 - 08:06 .