246 réponses à ce sujet

[AkiKishi]

Around 40% of the quests are "fetch" quests (or scan).

[Herky]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Herky wrote...

"...no other series of games spanning two or more direct sequels have given players the amount of choice and consequence that Mass Effect has,
and I think fans would do well to remember that. The fact that this was
achieved in just two years – the same amount of time Infinity Wards
dedicates to new Call of Duty shooters – speaks volumes of the effort and dedication the team at BioWare actually put in to make it as good as it is."

Choices we were given in ME1 and ME2 a lots, conscequences we were given some in ME2, but ME3 in the end give little choices and even fewer consequences (unless you consider +X number in war asset "consequences").

It's still something that isn't done normally in games and I think it's cool that's it there at all, you do see some consequences from the first game and I really appreciate those things

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

It depend on which choices you made, where you could have illusion of consequences if you played something more like the "cannon" they decided. Most of my choices and consequences were just negated by the game, so I cannot agree.

Modifié par Kakita Tatsumaru, 15 avril 2012 - 02:33 .

[Scott2998]

@OP: I agree with everything you said except for everything after "Apart from the ending, Mass Effect 3 was great"

[Krogangreetings]

I agree looking back over the game it wasn't all that great with a few massive exceptions

cut corners everywhere in terms of showing your forces fighting
SOOO many fetch quests
little more than tiny cameos for many characters
EMS meaning single plaeyer only wasn't an option
Even when trying to tie the multiplayer into single player it made no sense
no proper face import

I still enjoyed the game for what it was but as an epic ending to the trilogy is underperformed imo

[Vasarkian]

Scott2998 wrote...

@OP: I agree with everything you said except for everything after "Apart from the ending, Mass Effect 3 was great"

Then your statement is illogical and you're just trying to troll. Reported.

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

Fireblader70 wrote...

OP, this is a dramatic space opera, not a detailed historical account of the galaxy. It was either find a superweapon device, defeat the Reapers conventionally, or die. The first option gives a higher chance of survival. Yes, it could be seen as a cheap way out, but there you go.
What would you have preferred instead?

I'm a bit confused by your argument here, in that you seem to be conflating in-character logistical problems with criticisms of the game as a fictional text.

Obviously *in character* finding a magic superweapon that destroys the reapers is a better solution but to many people (and I am one of them) it is flat out crappy storytelling.

Similarly *in character* the fact that defeating the reapers conventionally is a very risky proposition is a point against it, but as a player this is a positive advantage.

If I was given the choice between (a) rely on a superweapon which will destroy the Reapers and save the galaxy no matter what I do or ( try to fight the reapers by conventional military methods, with the ultimate survival of the galaxy depending on my actions and my ability to unite the various races into an effective fighting force then as a *player* I'd far rather choose option ( because, well, I'm playing a video game, and I sort of want the stuff I do to matter.

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

AlanC9 wrote...
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.

I don't think the example holds, for pretty much the reason you outline. Assuming we consider ME one big narrative (which seems only fair, since Lord of the Rings is *also* a trilogy) the Crucible is introduced one third of the way into the Mass Effect trilogy whereas the Ring is introduced in the *actual title* of Lord of the Rings (or if you prefer, is actually introduced in a *previous book*).

In LotR the Ring is known *from the outset* to be the key to stopping Sauron (indeed you find out about the ring *before* you find out about Sauron) and from the beginning the Fellowship knows (a) what it is, ( where it came from and perhaps most importantly © what they have to do in order to use the Ring to defeat Sauron.

When the Crucible is introduced we have no idea what it is, and right up until the end of the game when they are actually *deploying the weapon against the Reapers* we *still* have no idea what it is or how it works or what it is supposed to do.

It's sort of as if Aragorn had found a random ring at the start of The Two Towers and sent it to Galadreil because he thought it might be helpful. And then at the start of Return of the King she'd given it back to him and told him that he had to use the ring to defeat Sauron, but not told him how or why or what the hell to do with it. And then finally when the armies of Men were at the gates of Mordor Gandalf had appeared, and told him that the ring needed a final component which he could only find on Mount Doom. And only when he was actually standing at the crack of doom did a spirit of the Va'lar appear and explain that the Ring had belonged to Sauron all along, and now he, Aragorn had the choice to destroy it, wear it, or become one with it.

[Nightwriter]

I'll stick with, "Apart from the endings, and the way the game treated the ME2 characters, Mass Effect 3 was great."

Everything else in the OP I can live with. Some of it I would complain about, but all of it I can live with.

The endings, and the way the game wrote ME2 character romances out -- not so much.

[Bobrzy]

Sheoro wrote...
- Your choices don’t matter
This doesn't just apply to the ending, it applies to the whole game. Did [companion from ME1/ME2] die? No problem, he's replaced by some NPC. Kept the Collector base? Have some Military Strength Points. Kept that NPC in ME1 alive? Military Points. Your companions from ME2? Military points. That assignment in ME1/2? Military. Points. The biggest thing I’ve heard of was about the Salarian Councilor, and even that is just a penny.

Frankly, i always felt that choices matter FOR ME, but they also reward/punish me when it comes to points. Best example would be

Spoiler

curing the genophage. If it was Wreav, and not Wrex in charge of the Krogans, my decision would've been different. Eve living/dying due to your choice of saving/destroying Maelons data in ME2 is also a very important factor.

So for me it was completely fine, i immersed myself in the world and decisions did matter to me. Up untill the last 10 minutes.

Sheoro wrote...
3/4 of ME1's staff wasn't involved in ME3:

http://www.abload.de...3staff1uk9b.jpg

And thank God for that, ME1 was the worst ME part, mos def.

[Chewin]

[quote]Sheoro wrote...
- Your choices don’t matter
This doesn't just apply to the ending, it applies to the whole game. Did [companion from ME1/ME2] die? No problem, he's replaced by some NPC. Kept the Collector base? Have some Military Strength Points. Kept that NPC in ME1 alive? Military Points. Your companions from ME2? Military points. That assignment in ME1/2? Military. Points. The biggest thing I’ve heard of was about the Salarian Councilor, and even that is just a penny.[/quote]

What about Tali being dead in my playthrough? I didn't geth peach with Quarian and Geth. What about me destroying the genophage cure during Mordin's loyalty mission in ME2? Eve dies no matter what? What about me keeping the Collector base in ME2? With a low EMS score I only got to choose the Control ending, instead of the Destroy one.

I like how you take up points that didn't matter, and ignore the rest which did, either more or less.

[quote]- 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: It should have been all about finding a way to stop the reapers. Instead we got that Cerberus and Collector stuff, and by the time ME3 was made, a writer or some cool guy found out: "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?[/quote]

Yup, ME2 sucked. But we basically knew that from the very beginning. Nothing surprising there.

Though I thought they would have rolled with the Dark Energy that was thrown at us more than once in ME2, but that got scrapped. Shame.

[quote]
- Geth
As if ME2 wasn't pointless enough, another part about it became completely
null: The Geth indoctrination.[/quote]

I'm missing your point in this post. Are you trying to say that ME2 "nullifies" Geth indoctrination when there are some that aren't controlled by the reapers? If that's the case, then you've seemingly missed on a lot of points made in the games.

[quote]Mass Effect 1:
"The Geth are controlled by Reapers."[/quote]

Well yes, but not in that way which you were describing it.

The geth formed the bulk of Saren's forces, following him because they believed he had the means to find the Conduit and bring back their "gods". In addition to providing ground troops, the geth also crewed (or tended to) Sovereign.
They were not indoctrinated, they 'followed' Sovereign b/c of their religious beliefs.

[quote]Mass Effect 2:

"Only a part of the Geth is controlled by Reapers."[/quote]

I can't really put my finger on what you are trying to point out here. What, you think Reapers control all of the Geths? Through the Geth's neural network? If that's the case, you've completely missed how it works. Though you could elaborate this statement, since I'm missing your point, if there even is one.

[quote]Mass Effect 3:

"The Geth are controlled by Reapers."[/quote]

And how did the Reapers come in "control" of the Geth? The Geth volunteered out of desperasion, which you seem to have missed in ME3.

[quote]There was absolutely no point in Legion's appearance in ME2 -especially since the history of the Geth uprising is explained once again (though unfitting and amateurish). Kind of reminds me of DX:HR, where the canon ending is “everyone dies, nothing that happened matters”.[/quote]

Welcome to game development! You seem to have forgotten that one of ME3's advertizements were that "ME3 is the best entry point to the series". How else should new players understand the Geth and sympathize with them in the game? I doubt BW would want to restrict player like that if the didn't play ME2. And you can't forget that ME3 is still an individual game, and is made as one and should be, b/c you are not rating the game through the course of the entire trilogy, are you?

And Legion appearing in ME2 wasn't pointless. How else could I sympathize with them after ME1. It gave a new viewpoint of the Geth, and they don't want to slaughter organics by the impression you may get in ME1.

[quote]
- Quarians
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. That if there's no noise, the engine died. Their whole pilgrimage bases on the fact their ships are flying junk that seriously needs some fixing.
Geth, on the other hand, had 300 years of access to unlimited resources and high-end technology. Not to mention all their other benefits from being synthetic. There is no way they didn’t build superior defenses and fleets.
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"?[/quote]

Sure, it's a coincidence you could say, but they have been studying Geth for centuries, trying to find a weakness, and when they allied themselves with the Reapers, they thought they had a chance of striking before it got worse.

Quarians are idiots, and this is shown in ME2 that they intend sooner or later to go to war. They just happened to find a reason, a poor one but a reason nonehtless to take back their homeworld.

[quote]- Companions
Am I the only one who noticed the massive changes in behavior for most Companions?
A short list:
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!")
Wrex
DIDN'T EVEN SAY HELLO. Tells unfunny knee-slappers jokes.
Ashley
Bimbofized.
Legion
Suddenly acts like an individual, nothing about its involvement makes any sense. Uses the word "beautiful".[/quote]

Sorry, but this statement of yours carries very little weight and yet again you take up their "flaws" (which is entirely subjective) and dismiss everything else their is to them. And this terms you took up makes really no sense, and you're making your opinions objective.

[quote]- EDI
Okay, they totally messed up here. EDI’s writer from ME2 left, and if you didn’t notice that, I just won’t believe you.  She constantly contradicts herself and former AI lore, stating for example that she has no emotions – meanwhile  dating Jeff, making Jokes and actually following Shepard out of loyalty.
And do I even have to mention the horrible, horrible[/i] design choice that is her body? It also leaves the question:
Why aren’t Geth remote-controlling bodies and ships from a safe spot?[/quote]

What, you though EDI acted as a true AI in ME2? Yeah right, EDI basically never acted to the "AI lore" you call. Don't see why ME3 is any different.

And you seemed to have missed on all the dialogs you could have with her in ME3, where she dicusses the nature of humans, feelings, etc. Her body is ridiculous, but again, that is subjective.

And your statement on the Geth makes no sense. Have you even played the game? I'm really starting to think you haven't. Or then you are dismissing everything that doesn't seem to appeal to you.

[quote]
- Dialogue
Can you even call it dialogue anymore? There were maybe two sentences Shepard said in ME1 that didn't require my input - and now he now talks all day by himself. Out of a 10 minutes dialogue cutscene I had two occasions to actually choose something. And these weren’t even meaningful choices.
Best example is that kid at the beginning: A renegade, or even just a mildly intelligent Shepard wouldn't waste his time on a single kid since there are millions dying already! But you can't influence that because someone really wanted him to have cliched nightmares.
Oh, not to mention the voice acting quality suffered greatly from the loss of Ginny McSwain.[/quote]

It's an annoyance, especially when you're trying to role play your Shepard as much as possible. ME3's Shepard isn't as much of a Shepard to you as he/she was in the previous instalments, and I can fully understand why anyone would hate on this.

Personally, I preferred ME3's Shepard over the previous one. Shepard is so much more of a human character in this instalment, rather than an unstoppable killer. But in ME3 he/she often questions himself/herself and
displays moments of weakness and vulnerability. I prefer a 'character' rather than a personal avatar. Though BW should have done this from the start, instead of throwing it in ME3.

[quote]
- Illusive Man
This guy had potential to be a god-tier villain. He is cruel, he is immoral, but his reasoning is flawless.
Whooosh, nope, indoctrinated! Since 20 years. From the first moment on I wanted to know "TIM, HOW do you want to control them?", but Shepard doesn't ask (quality writing strikes again) and TIM doesn't explain. He just wants to do it. And he merely tried to convince Shepard, his most expensive project[/i], to believe him.[/quote]

I agree. TIM is an idiot, and even more of a one in ME3. He is a disfigured looking madman and he’s indoctrinated, that's all there is to him really. It automatically means he’s wrong and you’re not. And basically nothing he says is
convincing. It lacks merit. All we want to do is shut him up by blowing his brains out, literally.

Wasted potential, that is what I say.

[quote]
- The "war"
This is really something that kept pressing on my mind the whole game:
Since ME1 we know that one single reaper needs a whole fleet to get destroyed, so a whole fleet of reapers needs an ungodly amount of firepower. Even in ME3, they manage to destroy the entire Earth defense force in seconds! It isn't war, it's slaughter, it’s pure survival, and everyone acknowledges that...
...and, seconds after, talks about it like a regular war: "The Reapers are pressing on our borders", "Their forces are in entrenched positions", and, my favorite, "we totally need the Krogan to fight these giant invincible
starships!"[/quote]

So you would rather prefer military leaders run around in panic saying we're doomed? Well I give you that it would be amusing.

Joking aside, I don't really see the problem. There's a wat going and people are trying to fight it, rather than succumb to it. Personally I would start to think that people are worthless if all they do is talk how bad things are and there is no hope.

And most of those "calm" quotes are said on the Citadel. Remeber what James Vega said to that?

Vega: “It’s not right. It looks pretty. Calm and peaceful. But it’s not right. It’s just an illusion”.

It's a good quote, and one that hits the nail.

[quote]- Last
but not least

3/4 of ME1's staff wasn't involved in ME3:

http://www.abload.de...3staff1uk9b.jpg[/quote]

Right, ME1 is the perfection, the pillar of the series, and it got ruined b/c the original team weren't present.

Cry me a river.

[quote]*just straight from my mind: Space Ninjas[/quote]

Yup, especially Kai Leng is the lamest one.

[quote]asking a Turian to help Earth while standing right in front of his burning homeworld[/quote]

B/c a great number of reapers are on Earth, and if they don't aid humans than those remaining reapers will eventually reach Palaven after they are done with Earth. Take on the main horde and then the scattered ones. It's a military tactic, which basically leaves Palaven kinda in disaster, but not completely destroyed.

[quote]Javik being another plot device par excellence[/quote]

Explain how exactly he was important to the plot, b/c from what I saw when I had him in my playthrough, he did nothing that would make him a plot device.

Modifié par Chewin3, 15 avril 2012 - 04:26 .

[Scott2998]

Vasarkian wrote...

Scott2998 wrote...

@OP: I agree with everything you said except for everything after "Apart from the ending, Mass Effect 3 was great"

Then your statement is illogical and you're just trying to troll. Reported.

No, my statement is a different way of saying "I think apart from the ending, Mass Effect 3 was great." which is another way of saying, "I disagree, no explanation necessary, I just disagree."

Thank you for the frivolous report. 

[Soaringeagle78]

Other than the completely idiotic format of the journal, I have to agree with the title quote.

[CroGamer002]

Chewin3 wrote...

What about me keeping the Collector base in ME2? With a low EMS score I only got to choose the Control ending, instead of the Destroy one.

Wait, really?!

[Kyle Kabanya]

I will agree the game by ITSELF was great. The ending sucked for the game, but comparing the game with the first two, yeah it has a lot of plot holes and everything.

If anyone actually believed their choices mattered, then you need to think with common sense. You have to be realistic that its a game. They can only fit in so many variables to the game, otherwise the game would have been a terrabyte in size.

People change and evolve as time passes, making comments about how Garrus talks more is just absurd. That's called his character is developing a bond with shep so he can actually talk to them more in depth than with other people. Ashley becoming a bimbo was a complete 180, that is a legit argument.

Trolls like you need to think before they create a forum to complain about the game. Part of your argument does need noting with Ashley and EDI, but other things such as the dialouge. They needed a lot of autodialouge because people who didn't play the first two would be scratching their head if shep was like yeah I remember that.

When you create a sequel to a game and choices you can change there is only so many variables and changez that can be included.

[Vasarkian]

Scott2998 wrote...

Vasarkian wrote...

Scott2998 wrote...

@OP: I agree with everything you said except for everything after "Apart from the ending, Mass Effect 3 was great"

Then your statement is illogical and you're just trying to troll. Reported.

No, my statement is a different way of saying "I think apart from the ending, Mass Effect 3 was great." which is another way of saying, "I disagree, no explanation necessary, I just disagree."

Thank you for the frivolous report. 

Since the only thing coming from that statement would be the incitation of other people to rally against you, it's clear that's trolling and you were aware of that. Additionally, it's been cited as trolling in other posts, so that's what it is.

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

Chewin3 wrote...

Welcome to game development! You seem to have forgotten that one of ME3's advertizements were that "ME3 is the best entry point to the series".

I doubt the OP as forgotten that, I suspect that they just realise that it was a *terrible* move.

If the last volume of your trilogy works best if you have *not experienced* the previous two volumes of the trilogy, then you have done something seriously wrong.

So you would rather prefer military leaders run around in panic saying we're doomed? Well I give you that it would be amusing.

Joking aside, I don't really see the problem. There's a wat going and people are trying to fight it, rather than succumb to it. Personally I would start to think that people are worthless if all they do is talk how bad things are and there is no hope.

I'm pretty sure the OP's point is that there *isn't* a war going on. What's happening is that a completely overwhelming force is overwhelming a galaxy that can do *literally nothing* about it.

Which makes your efforts to recruit "War Assets" particularly pointless.

[Cainne Chapel]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Herky wrote...

"...no other series of games spanning two or more direct sequels have given players the amount of choice and consequence that Mass Effect has,
and I think fans would do well to remember that. The fact that this was
achieved in just two years – the same amount of time Infinity Wards
dedicates to new Call of Duty shooters – speaks volumes of the effort and dedication the team at BioWare actually put in to make it as good as it is."

Choices we were given in ME1 and ME2 a lots, conscequences we were given some in ME2, but ME3 in the end give little choices and even fewer consequences (unless you consider +X number in war asset "consequences").

There were quite a high number of "consequences" in ME3.  or is resolving centures and millineia old galactic issues not...major enough for ya?

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

Kyle Kabanya wrote...

If anyone actually believed their choices mattered, then you need to think with common sense. You have to be realistic that its a game. They can only fit in so many variables to the game, otherwise the game would have been a terrabyte in size.

But they *did* track all those variables. They just *deliberately* removed their consequences.

They didn't have to retcon in a second genophage cure for those who destroyed the first one, or make Udina Councilor regardless of who you picked in the first game. That wasn't a technical limitation, it was a deliberate design choice.

[vertigo72]

Well, my opinion is that the ending is not bad too

[Legion_IV]

The game is great, however the first 2 are sensational.

[Spectre Impersonator]

The game as a whole is not perfect but I do consider it great until the end. That's the only point where it completely skews thematically and ruins the entire saga. Other minor gripes can be fixed later. (Kai Leng's pathetic boss fights)

[Chewin]

Mesina2 wrote...
Wait, really?!

Yup.

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...
I doubt the OP as forgotten that, I suspect that they just realise that it was a *terrible* move.

If the last volume of your trilogy works best if you have *not experienced* the previous two volumes of the trilogy, then you have done something seriously wrong.

I agree, but you have to see it from a marketing point of view, and what EA and / or BW does is "catering" to newer fans.

I'm pretty sure the OP's point is that there *isn't* a war going on. What's happening is that a completely overwhelming force is overwhelming a galaxy that can do *literally nothing* about it.

Which makes your efforts to recruit "War Assets" particularly pointless.

I see. Then its subjective for how that impacts you. Personally I felt it was a war, and some may think there should have been more of "war zones".

Modifié par Chewin3, 15 avril 2012 - 04:51 .