239 réponses à ce sujet

[NurseMack]

txgoldrush wrote...
clipped

*sigh*

You again...still trying to force your opinions on people. Lovely.

As for something on topic, I'm note sure if the 75 perfect scores is true. I stopped listening to major reviewers long ago. It is odd that there are only a few that bring up the ending. Though I wasn't too fond of Ray Muzyka's blog post, acting like it's only a minority that is displeased with the ending. Then there was that bit about "it's the journey, not the destination". Oh yeah, sure it's been a great journey throughout the 3 games. But the climax is just as, if not more important as the journey. It's like the equivalent of blue balls.

Funny thing I found amongst my long time XBL friends. Out of 14 of them, only 2 were pleased with the ending. And we've gone back and forth debating the ending and things spawned by the ending. The rest of us either hate it or are just saddened by it due to it not being the ending Shepard's story deserved.

All games will have it's flaws, one way or another. But I can get past flaws in Mass Effect 1 and 2 and other previous titles. The things that txgoldrush have stated, I don't find many of them to be flaws, they have no negative impact on me. But for Mass Effect 3, a game that claims to be an RPG, I find this to to be garbage.

http://img208.images.../8463/w6ixd.png

I don't know what went on with the development team for ME3, but for me it felt like the passion Bioware once had was lost. It had it moments...but somewhere along the line, they lost that lovin' feeling.

[KingNewbs]

Katherine wrote...

Reviewers rarely play through the entire game, unfortunately.

Yep, this. Even if they played MOST of the game, you can see why it might get perfect scores, and honestly if I was a game reviewer who rated it perfect and didn't even mention the ending I'd be real embarrassed by it.

[txgoldrush]

VibrantYacht wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Aceor wrote...

Read the thread from start to end and reading txgoldrush postings just makes me sad.

People like him that cant see the flaws and have so much ignorance is just like talking to a wall.

Either paid or indoctrinated

And i wont reply to u cause its no use u wont listen,just argue

ME3 HAS flaws......but everyone is acting like Bioware's past games didn't, even ME1 and ME2.

I see the flaws, they are just not that big, except for the endings lack of clarity.

I don't think anyone would deny that past BioWare games have problems. They aren't the topic of this discussion though. Why would we discuss them now?

it matters because of the mindset people have of how grand Bioware was that can do no worng...until EA came along....then the criticism starts even though th epast games also had the same flaws.

And many flaws of the past games, such as weak character participation in the plot, the lack of character development, or the fact that characters hardly related to eachother, was fixed for ME3. The problem with ME2's weak plot because character development got too much emphasis was also fixed.

The Talking Codex nonsense was also fixed, characters relate in a far more natural way in ME3, although ME2 addressed this problem a bit as well. ME1 and DAO for instance had bad problems in how the characters come off as talking codex entries.

[Mcfly616]

You consider this game a "masterpiece"?....wow, you know I can't remember the last game or movie I've seen with a **** ending, that's considered a masterpiece....

A masterpiece has a Masterful beginning, middle and END......

I thought the game was a masterpiece...at one point.....and then the End nullified that.....a masterpiece does not have an arguably sh*tty ending....sorry.....a masterpiece usually has an ending that is unanimously agreed upon as "awesome".....something tells me ME3 doesn't fit the bill

[Giantdeathrobot]

Eeeh... I would rate MGS4 (movie with some playable sequences) and Gears of War (machismo, enough said) far lower than any Mass Effect games myself. Opinions and arses, eh?

That being said, it's no secret that the gaming industry is choke-full of conflicts of interests. Sites or publications reviewing games all the while harboring tons of advertisement for it. IGN is of course the worst, with one of their top reporters as an in-game character just because she's popular with the site (please don't try to justify this one, it's painfully clear she wasen't hired for her talent unlike the rest of the cast). But they are far from the only ones.

[txgoldrush]

NurseMack wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
clipped

*sigh*

You again...still trying to force your opinions on people. Lovely.

As for something on topic, I'm note sure if the 75 perfect scores is true. I stopped listening to major reviewers long ago. It is odd that there are only a few that bring up the ending. Though I wasn't too fond of Ray Muzyka's blog post, acting like it's only a minority that is displeased with the ending. Then there was that bit about "it's the journey, not the destination". Oh yeah, sure it's been a great journey throughout the 3 games. But the climax is just as, if not more important as the journey. It's like the equivalent of blue balls.

Funny thing I found amongst my long time XBL friends. Out of 14 of them, only 2 were pleased with the ending. And we've gone back and forth debating the ending and things spawned by the ending. The rest of us either hate it or are just saddened by it due to it not being the ending Shepard's story deserved.

All games will have it's flaws, one way or another. But I can get past flaws in Mass Effect 1 and 2 and other previous titles. The things that txgoldrush have stated, I don't find many of them to be flaws, they have no negative impact on me. But for Mass Effect 3, a game that claims to be an RPG, I find this to to be garbage.

http://img208.images.../8463/w6ixd.png

I don't know what went on with the development team for ME3, but for me it felt like the passion Bioware once had was lost. It had it moments...but somewhere along the line, they lost that lovin' feeling.

How did ME3 lose passion? In fact, the character development AND the character moments show incredible passion. In fact the Thane's death scene alone shows your criticism about passion comes from a bulls ass. Nevermind the acclaimed Genophage cure and The Geth/Quarian section. Even the Cerebrus HQ section had passion, and even the London mission itself.

Lack of character development and lack of character particpation in the story IS A FLAW. When you are treating characters as information banks, or jhave shallow character development, it takes away from the story. For example, KOTOR II's cast actually have plot roles, unlike most of KOTOR's cast, who are just there. Bioware games struggle with character development and participation in the main plot with their characters. And in fact its the games fans whine about most that fix this problem....DA2 and ME3.

And lookie here...a bunch of people want to whine about how people like the game, in this case game reviewers....I wonder why I am so forceful.

And face it, Bioware doesn't want to make the same old conservatibve RPG anymore.

[ShepnTali]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

Mass Effect 3 - 10/10
76 PERFECT scores now. 

Oh brother, time for a BSN rating poll.

[savionen]

txgoldrush wrote...

How did ME3 lose passion? In fact, the character development AND the character moments show incredible passion. In fact the Thane's death scene alone shows your criticism about passion comes from a bulls ass. Nevermind the acclaimed Genophage cure and The Geth/Quarian section. Even the Cerebrus HQ section had passion, and even the London mission itself.

Saying "in fact" doesn't make your opinion right. I thought there was just about absolutely no character development in ME3. Tali and Wrex haven't really changed from ME2, if anything, they turned into ****s a bit in ME3. Garrus is exactly the same. None of the new characters really grow at all. Can you really say Vega is any different at the beginning compared to the end? Does Kaidan or Ashley really change? No. Being passionate about your world being destroyed, when all of them are being destroyed, isn't really character development. Tali dealing with her father's death and potentially being exiled, Garrus leaving C-Sec, Liara becoming the Shadow Broker is character development.

Modifié par savionen, 22 avril 2012 - 02:25 .

[viperabyss]

[quote]txgoldrush wrote...

Might and Magic VI was a sandbox game, and it was almost bug free. You are being a hypocrite here....Oh and nevermind that most Bioware games are buggy as well, why the special hate for ME3? Nevermind that save corruption glitch for DAO.[/quote]

Might and Magic VI was released in 1996. Elder Scroll's Skyrim was released in 2011. And you're comparing the both of them? Brilliant!

And your rebuttal pratically amounts to, because they make buggy game all the time, so you shouldn't knock on ME3.

Really? Seriously? Casey Hudson and his team made ME2, which was practically bug free. The same damn team made ME3, and it is full of bugs, but somehow that's acceptable?


[quote]So where are all the trees in ME1? Why are all the planets barren, even the ones with life? Why are all the buildings the same? Face it, cut and paste job with different colors and skylines. Something that was heavily criticized in ME1...deal with it.

And why are you willfully ignoring quests like the Grission Acedmy mission, which is better than any side quest in the first two games? Oh wiat it doesn't fit your point of view. Nevermind the weak ones only last 30 minutes. [/quote]

Maybe because most of the planet you visit is actually devoid of life, and actually hazardous to life? Have you even played ME? I agree with the skyline part, but saying it is a cut and paste job is ignoring the details. But again, what can I expect? 

And the Grisson Academy is a side quest, sure. It is one of the more flushed out side quest, and it is somewhat essential to the game, because...oh I don't know, this is a opportunity to meet recurring member? Grisson Academy is akin to loyalty mission in ME2.

When I say sidequests, I mean the quest you pick up on Citadel / Normandy, and does not show up in the galaxy map. Fact is, it is a horrible system, and Bioware should've thought that through.

[quote]
So Adams doesn't know which store, but he DOES know its on the Citadel.[/quote]

There is a mix here, some quest givers know where the artifact is, some don't. Many are worded in a way that if "you come across it, let me know" type of deal, which is a more organic way of handling it. Even if the side quests are flawed, they are only a small part of the game, even taking consideration of war assets.[/quote]

No. Most quest givers don't. I already gave you a list of people who didn't tell you anything at all, other than the objective. 

And no, "you come across it, let me know" means direct conversation with the person. Did we have direct conversation with majority of the quest givers?

[quote]

Really while some crew mates do recognize other members in ME2, its no where near the level of ME3, where they talk and even support one another. The other two games easily pale in comparision to the comradrie that ME3 has.

Ashley has tons of interaction points....the mission on Mars, two hospital visits, the Citadel attack and her recruitment, two convos in the Citadel, two in the ship, her romance scene, and a goodbye.[/quote]

Sure, the verbal interaction between squad members have improved, but the overall content level has decreased. And in your Ashley's example, how is it different from, say, Miranda? Excluding all of the conversation prior to you getting the Normandy, she has a welcome message, 3~4 dialogues regarding her background, 2 regarding her loyalty mission, 3 regarding her romance, a romance scene, a short conversation with TIM in Collector Base, and one for the aftermath. Conversation with Ashley pales in front of Miranda's, in terms of content.

[quote]

So, just because its the first game of the series, it excuses plot holes and poor character development? Please. There are many ways of expanding the universe without doing what ME1 did in its FLAWED method of building teh universe. Why not have main plot relevance or have it in side missions relevant to the plot? Why is Tali a talking codex entry for a major plot point for ME1, instead of exploring the quarian creation of the geth in the main story? Many firsts in series or trilogies explored their lore and universe far better than ME1 did, or developed their characters far better than ME1 did.



[/quote]

Poor character development? LOL... Let's be objective here: do we have a lot of emotional scenes with those characters? Obviously no, because we don't know them that well, but the seed was planted in the first game. What you see in ME3 is the result of character development that started in the first trilogy. Everybody's background was properly explained in ME, from Wrex's worry for the genophage, to Ashley's military background and the love for poetry, to Garrus' renegade attitude, to Tali's quest for her Pilgramage. Saying ME doesn't have character development is ridiculous to say the least.

I'm also not aware of any plot holes, but I'm damn sure it is not as big as the ME3's ending.

ME's side mission is not relevent to the plot, I agree, but it is indeed relevent to the trilogy. Again, without doing those side missions, you're missing out on a lot of material that will be required later in the trilogy. What ME did was, like I said before, establishing the universe. Can you do it other ways? Sure, but people apparently liked the way ME was structured, including me. Because after all, ME is not a plot driven game (unlike DE:HR or COD), but a setting drivened game (character, background, settings).

And one of the reasons why ME has such followers is because the original creator establishes the world well, so the immersive experience is much better. People play COD all the time, but they're definitely not attached to Soap the way people are attached to Garrus, or Shepard. 

As for Tali, the ME creator didn't put too much game content into the Quarian / Geth history because it is irrelevent to the theme of the game, which was to stop Saren and Sovereign. 

[quote]
By your logic, than all the Normandy ME3 sidequests aren't the same because I am picking up different objects and that they are in different star systsems..... [/quote]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

[viperabyss]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

viperabyss wrote...

Sorry, but I disagree.

Without the ending, other problems include:

1. Bugs (especially on the Normandy)
2. Horrible side-quest system
3. Horrible journal system
4. Lack of character dialogue
5. Lack of dialogue wheels
6. Lack of explorable area
7. Lack of vehicular action

There are definitely some good points in the game, such as the Tuchanka arc, the Rannoch arc, and some other missions such as the Ardat-Yakshi Temple. But if I were to rate this game, not putting any bias into the ending, I would've given this game an 8.

This game is a far cry from a quality product, let alone a perfect 10.

I'm sorry, but 8 is grade inflation. Look at what you cited. This is a RPG. This game is a 7.0 at best, excluding item 7. The journal system, side-quest system, and lack of dialog wheels and explorable area is enough to knock it down that far alone. The journal system is horrible. And I'll add one more -- requiring multi-player or iOS to get best results in the single player campaign.

Well, given the fact that Mass Effect is a hybrid of RPG and shooter, and veer more to shooter in the third installment, I'm willing to be generous, and overlook some fact that Mass Effect 3 is a horrible RPG.

But I definitely agree with you on the multiplayer / iOS app part. Bioware lied. It is simple as that.

[NickelToe]

hopeisreal wrote...

 

How is this possible?

How?

How is it even possible for the game to get a 9? Meaning it only had MINIMAL problems.

It's things like this that lead one to believe.....(okay, don't want to get banned...yet)

But gimme a break. There are so many issues with this game and when you compare it to the likes of GTA 4, Uncharted 2, Halo, Gears of War....it falls VERY short of those games. And those games are in the 9 and PERFECT category. 

So really....were the reviewers either on crack cocaine skonta riga? Or.....again....don't want to go down that road....

If you read through some of them the comments about the game are somewhat critical however the number does not match the text.  Even if there is not some under-handed deal between developers and review sites the game review sites pretty much make it look that way with their rush to be the first review showing up in a google search and the rush to put up top scores on games by big companies.

Basically all you got now for decisions is places like Meta Critic and non-number based review sites that do not care if they get the game early or not.  Since there are so many who will flat out give a 0 if the game is just a little less disireable than they were expecting you have to sift through it.  At least though with user reivews you get point of views similar to your own if you dont mind spending a little extra time going through the masses.  Game review sites are over in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing driving them but being the first link on google day 1 of release.  I use a broswer script blocker so I do not have to support them in the event I am redirected to their sites and I do what i can to stay away from them.

[txgoldrush]

savionen wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

How did ME3 lose passion? In fact, the character development AND the character moments show incredible passion. In fact the Thane's death scene alone shows your criticism about passion comes from a bulls ass. Nevermind the acclaimed Genophage cure and The Geth/Quarian section. Even the Cerebrus HQ section had passion, and even the London mission itself.

Saying "in fact" doesn't make your opinion right. I thought there was just about absolutely no character development in ME3. Tali and Wrex haven't really changed from ME2, if anything, they turned into ****s a bit in ME3. Garrus is exactly the same. None of the new characters really grow at all. Can you really say Vega is any different at the beginning compared to the end? Does Kaidan or Ashley really change? No. Being passionate about your world being destroyed, when all of them are being destroyed, isn't really character development. Tali dealing with her father's death, Garrus leaving C-Sec, Liara becoming the Shadow Broker is character development.

Garrus is not the same....he realizes now that he is not alone in his fight. Yes, of all the main characters he develops least.

Tali was pro-war with the geth in ME2, likely in the antiwar camp in ME3, thats a huge change. Also romantically, she is far more sure than she was in mE2. Tali also is more forgiving to people who have wronged her. Tali is a FAR more mature character than she ever was in ME1.

Vega is far more confident at the end than the beginning, did you miss the part where he doubts getting into the N7 program. He becomes a more learned solider at the end.

Kaiden and Ashley learn to trust Shepard, and this really shows if you take them into the Cerebrus HQ. Remember at first they question Shep about his ties to Cerebrus. Kaiden realizes that there is even good people in Cerebrus who didn't share TIM's extreme methods.

Liara finds out she is not in control of everything, and people will die despite her actions. The ENTIRE Thessia mission and afterwards is HUGE character development.

Oh boy does Javik develop, and his relationship with Liara develops.

EDI has some of the most significant character development in Bioware history.

Cortez puts his loss behind him if you interact with him.

You are just plain wrong...ME3 has just as strong characterd evelopment as ME2, and far better than ME1. But, mE3's cast actually develop with the plot.

[NurseMack]

txgoldrush wrote...

NurseMack wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
clipped

*sigh*

You again...still trying to force your opinions on people. Lovely.

As for something on topic, I'm note sure if the 75 perfect scores is true. I stopped listening to major reviewers long ago. It is odd that there are only a few that bring up the ending. Though I wasn't too fond of Ray Muzyka's blog post, acting like it's only a minority that is displeased with the ending. Then there was that bit about "it's the journey, not the destination". Oh yeah, sure it's been a great journey throughout the 3 games. But the climax is just as, if not more important as the journey. It's like the equivalent of blue balls.

Funny thing I found amongst my long time XBL friends. Out of 14 of them, only 2 were pleased with the ending. And we've gone back and forth debating the ending and things spawned by the ending. The rest of us either hate it or are just saddened by it due to it not being the ending Shepard's story deserved.

All games will have it's flaws, one way or another. But I can get past flaws in Mass Effect 1 and 2 and other previous titles. The things that txgoldrush have stated, I don't find many of them to be flaws, they have no negative impact on me. But for Mass Effect 3, a game that claims to be an RPG, I find this to to be garbage.

http://img208.images.../8463/w6ixd.png

I don't know what went on with the development team for ME3, but for me it felt like the passion Bioware once had was lost. It had it moments...but somewhere along the line, they lost that lovin' feeling.

How did ME3 lose passion? In fact, the character development AND the character moments show incredible passion. In fact the Thane's death scene alone shows your criticism about passion comes from a bulls ass. Nevermind the acclaimed Genophage cure and The Geth/Quarian section. Even the Cerebrus HQ section had passion, and even the London mission itself.

Lack of character development and lack of character particpation in the story IS A FLAW. When you are treating characters as information banks, or jhave shallow character development, it takes away from the story. For example, KOTOR II's cast actually have plot roles, unlike most of KOTOR's cast, who are just there. Bioware games struggle with character development and participation in the main plot with their characters. And in fact its the games fans whine about most that fix this problem....DA2 and ME3.

And lookie here...a bunch of people want to whine about how people like the game, in this case game reviewers....I wonder why I am so forceful.

And face it, Bioware doesn't want to make the same old conservatibve RPG anymore.

I said it had moments, some of the examples you listed being moments. Some may of still had their passion, but as a whole, I feel they lost it.

I saw no lack of character development in the past titles. I found nothing unnatural about an alien species telling another alien species about their culture and differences. I could guide the conversation to certain things within my options. I was not railroaded into dialogue by picking 1 or 2 options. I never found myself talking to anyone in the previous games and saying "Gee, this takes away from the story". You just met these characters. You formed a connection with them. You learn about them and their backgrouds, opinions on certain things, so on and so forth. Those connections cotinue on into the next games. Saying the first game had no character development makes me question if you have actually played it.

I haven't played KOTOR or KOTOR 2 in many years so I can't really comment on that.

I haven't seen many whine about the 75 Perfect. I've seen them question it. As in question the reviewers. From reading some of them, I'll admit, it does seem like they played a different game than I.

And if Bioware doesn't want to create an "conservative" RPG, fine. Just don't advertise it that way.

[squee365]

Chris Priestly, could we please have a list of all 75 perfect scores? Its not really believable, I mean not even uncharted 2 had that many perfect scores, and thats the last game I can remember that had a LOT of perfect scores given to it...

[recentio]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Modifié par recentio, 22 avril 2012 - 02:43 .

[ShepnTali]

squee365 wrote...

Chris Priestly, could we please have a list of all 75 perfect scores? Its not really believable, I mean not even uncharted 2 had that many perfect scores, and thats the last game I can remember that had a LOT of perfect scores given to it...

I'm safely sure Uncharted 2 had as many, if not more, if mined from the same kinds of review resources. And Skyrim... good grief. 

[Yearlongjester]

This is what really gets me. The game was not perfect. This isn't a slight directed at ME3, I have yet to play a single game where I haven't found a single flaw. So no game deserves a 10/10, and I discount the opinions of whoever awards ANY game a 10/10.

[txgoldrush]

"Might and Magic VI was released in 1996. Elder Scroll's Skyrim was released in 2011. And you're comparing the both of them? Brilliant!

And your rebuttal pratically amounts to, because they make buggy game all the time, so you shouldn't knock on ME3.

Really? Seriously? Casey Hudson and his team made ME2, which was practically bug free. The same damn team made ME3, and it is full of bugs, but somehow that's acceptable?"

You should knock ME3 for bugginess, but everyone acts like their past games have polish...they don't.

And ME2 was far from bug free, I got stuck in the middle of the environment many times, especially as a Vanguard..

"Maybe because most of the planet you visit is actually devoid of life, and actually hazardous to life? Have you even played ME? I agree with the skyline part, but saying it is a cut and paste job is ignoring the details. But again, what can I expect?

And the Grisson Academy is a side quest, sure. It is one of the more flushed out side quest, and it is somewhat essential to the game, because...oh I don't know, this is a opportunity to meet recurring member? Grisson Academy is akin to loyalty mission in ME2.

When I say sidequests, I mean the quest you pick up on Citadel / Normandy, and does not show up in the galaxy map. Fact is, it is a horrible system, and Bioware should've thought that through."

Yes, its a flawed system, but its not major because there simply isn't long enough side quest content. The problem can also be worked around. Why can't you get this?

Notice that reviewers somewhat by consensus criticized the journal but did not majorly dock review scores? Because its not that big of a problem.

And side quests should tie into the main plot or its themes....ME3 does it better than ME1 does (not as good as ME2 does I will give you that).

"Sure, the verbal interaction between squad members have improved, but the overall content level has decreased. And in your Ashley's example, how is it different from, say, Miranda? Excluding all of the conversation prior to you getting the Normandy, she has a welcome message, 3~4 dialogues regarding her background, 2 regarding her loyalty mission, 3 regarding her romance, a romance scene, a short conversation with TIM in Collector Base, and one for the aftermath. Conversation with Ashley pales in front of Miranda's, in terms of content."

Miranda is the dueteragonist of ME2, OF COURSE she gets a lot of dialogue, she is the 2nd most important character after Shepard. Ashley is not the dueteragonist, its either Liara or even Anderson in ME3. This doesn't change the fact that the cast as a whole have more interaction moments than the cast of ME2, nevermind they play roles in the plot unlike ME2 outside of Miranda, Jacob, and Mordin.

"Poor character development? LOL... Let's be objective here: do we have a lot of emotional scenes with those characters? Obviously no, because we don't know them that well, but the seed was planted in the first game. What you see in ME3 is the result of character development that started in the first trilogy. Everybody's background was properly explained in ME, from Wrex's worry for the genophage, to Ashley's military background and the love for poetry, to Garrus' renegade attitude, to Tali's quest for her Pilgramage. Saying ME doesn't have character development is ridiculous to say the least."

Characters revealing their histories is not development, its establishment. Character development is how characters GROW and CHANGE, which they really don't outside of maybe Wrex and Ashley in ME1.

I wonder why Garrus, Liara, and Tali were so different from ME1 to ME2, but gow far more naturally from ME2 to ME3. Maybe because ME1 did not provide good development so they had to develop these characters in between ME1 and ME2...thats jarring.

"I'm also not aware of any plot holes, but I'm damn sure it is not as big as the ME3's ending.

ME's side mission is not relevent to the plot, I agree, but it is indeed relevent to the trilogy. Again, without doing those side missions, you're missing out on a lot of material that will be required later in the trilogy. What ME did was, like I said before, establishing the universe. Can you do it other ways? Sure, but people apparently liked the way ME was structured, including me. Because after all, ME is not a plot driven game (unlike DE:HR or COD), but a setting drivened game (character, background, settings)."

Which is lazy? If Cerebrus was important, why couldn't they, not ExoGeni, be the ones on Feros? Just because you are establishing the universe doesn't excuse you from flaws of plot and side mission segregation. ME1 was not a sandbox game.

Nevrmind they vary notion of doing side missions while CHASING someone. Its like Saren waits for Shepard so he can give him a chance. Thats a plot hole that many RPGs fall into with side missions during moments of urgency.

"And one of the reasons why ME has such followers is because the original creator establishes the world well, so the immersive experience is much better. People play COD all the time, but they're definitely not attached to Soap the way people are attached to Garrus, or Shepard.

As for Tali, the ME creator didn't put too much game content into the Quarian / Geth history because it is irrelevent to the theme of the game, which was to stop Saren and Sovereign."

Other than its the Quarians creations you fight throughout the game and that are lead by Saren and Soviergn...its not important...lol

[warrior256]

Honestly, I think this score is too high, even if we ignore the endings. Prior to charging the beam, I would have given ME3 something between an 8.5 and a 9 out of 10. It is a really good game, but it has a lot of flaws (mostly minor ones) that, when added up, weaken the expierience as a whole.

[VibrantYacht]

txgoldrush wrote...

VibrantYacht wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Aceor wrote...

Read the thread from start to end and reading txgoldrush postings just makes me sad.

People like him that cant see the flaws and have so much ignorance is just like talking to a wall.

Either paid or indoctrinated

And i wont reply to u cause its no use u wont listen,just argue

ME3 HAS flaws......but everyone is acting like Bioware's past games didn't, even ME1 and ME2.

I see the flaws, they are just not that big, except for the endings lack of clarity.

I don't think anyone would deny that past BioWare games have problems. They aren't the topic of this discussion though. Why would we discuss them now?

it matters because of the mindset people have of how grand Bioware was that can do no worng...until EA came along....then the criticism starts even though th epast games also had the same flaws.

And many flaws of the past games, such as weak character participation in the plot, the lack of character development, or the fact that characters hardly related to eachother, was fixed for ME3. The problem with ME2's weak plot because character development got too much emphasis was also fixed.

The Talking Codex nonsense was also fixed, characters relate in a far more natural way in ME3, although ME2 addressed this problem a bit as well. ME1 and DAO for instance had bad problems in how the characters come off as talking codex entries.

Well, that wasn't really a direct answer to my question but I'll respond to it anyway.
 
People had that mindset about BioWare because they produced excellent RPGs. They seemed to have moved away from it and this change occured about the same time they were bought by EA. I don't hate EA, but I think people put those two together.
What I mean by BioWare moving away from RPGs is their streamling of their games. The first problem with this is the violation of expectation. Meaning when we buy a BioWare game, we expect fantastic RPGs. Instead we get shooters. The second issue is actually more of a reinforcement of the previous point. They advertise their games as RPGs. Furthering the violation. This of course results in frustration on behalf of the fan base. If they want to make an action game that's fine, but it should be sold and marketed as much. The reason there is so much more outcry now though, is because this is the furthest they’ve been from RPG territory, but they still chose to market it as an RPG (or EA did, which causes more dislike of the publisher).
What I mean by streamlining is the removal of RPG elements. While I think on the surface these removals make appear to make sense, these removals add up and in fact remove player involvement in the story. An example of this is the auto dialogue. I can certainly understand why they did it and I understand them thinking it wouldn’t make much of a difference. However, the result of this removal is very negative for two reasons. The first of these problems is a lack of interest in conversations. Without having a say more often (even if that say is irrelevant in the long run), I feel less need to pay attention and without the conversations the game becomes a third-person shooter. The second problem is that it produces character problems in Shepard. The most crucial of which (which you might consider not auto-dialogue) is with the kid on Earth. No matter what type of Shepard you are playing as, it does not make sense for Shepard to care that much about one young civilian. In fact, in Lair of the Shadow Broker, Shepard uses this argument while Spectre Lady has a hostage. This applies especially to renegade Shepards. The game automatically and very blatantly assigns the players character (YOUR character) behaviors outside of your choices.
 
So that’s my take on your first sentence…
 
Second part of your response I’m not entirely sure how to respond because I think people vastly missed the point with their ME2 complaints. In my opinion, the problem with ME2 was that the story didn’t advance at all. We were at the same point at the end of ME2 as we were at the end of ME1. Apparently, in their attempts to find a reason for this problem, they said the emphasis on the characters was too great (apparently, according to you. Idk, I wasn’t around at that point). I do not get this criticism at all. The greatest strength of ME2 was its character development and exploration of the ME2 universe. Also, arguing that character focus ruined the plot is just… wrong. Characters make the plot no matter what story is being told.
Weak character interaction with the plot also doesn’t make much sense. It’s not about how the characters determine the outcome, it’s how the player determines the outcome by their choices. This is the biggest problem with the ending, in my opinion. The ending, instead of being a result of our choices, is a choice by itself. This removes the influence of every single previous choice the player made (which is why this is such a sucker punch to the player). So why are the characters important? They are important because of their relationship with Shepard. Each provides a unique viewpoint on a situation, and when relationships are built up with certain squad members, emotional decisions can trump logical ones. It all goes back to player influence and choice. ME3 took a very great part of that away.
 
That is my view on your second point…
 
As for the codex thing, I get where you’re coming from, but it seems like you’re making a problem where there isn’t one. I thought they came off fine in ME1 (didn’t play DA:O) and it was natural it would only get better throughout the series as the writers got to know the characters better and the players got to know the universe better. That’s really all I have to say about that.
 
That is my view on your third point…
 
The primary problems of ME3 are much more substantial than in previous BioWare games because of SEVERE violations of expectation and the more BioWare continues to stand by their game in the same way, the longer the backlash will continue.

[FilmDirector554]

I never understand reviews for games that complain about the bugs, flaws, drops in frame rate, and generally annoying crap...then say "if you overlook these, it's a fantastic game! 9.5/10!!!"

[4stringwizard]

Critics raved about KOTOR 2. Fans were let down.
Critics raved about DA2. Fans were let down.
Critics raved about ME3. Fans were REALLY let down.

Critics don't speak for fans. Bringing up critic scores in their defense only shows how out of touch Bioware is.

[txgoldrush]

NurseMack wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

NurseMack wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
clipped

*sigh*

You again...still trying to force your opinions on people. Lovely.

As for something on topic, I'm note sure if the 75 perfect scores is true. I stopped listening to major reviewers long ago. It is odd that there are only a few that bring up the ending. Though I wasn't too fond of Ray Muzyka's blog post, acting like it's only a minority that is displeased with the ending. Then there was that bit about "it's the journey, not the destination". Oh yeah, sure it's been a great journey throughout the 3 games. But the climax is just as, if not more important as the journey. It's like the equivalent of blue balls.

Funny thing I found amongst my long time XBL friends. Out of 14 of them, only 2 were pleased with the ending. And we've gone back and forth debating the ending and things spawned by the ending. The rest of us either hate it or are just saddened by it due to it not being the ending Shepard's story deserved.

All games will have it's flaws, one way or another. But I can get past flaws in Mass Effect 1 and 2 and other previous titles. The things that txgoldrush have stated, I don't find many of them to be flaws, they have no negative impact on me. But for Mass Effect 3, a game that claims to be an RPG, I find this to to be garbage.

http://img208.images.../8463/w6ixd.png

I don't know what went on with the development team for ME3, but for me it felt like the passion Bioware once had was lost. It had it moments...but somewhere along the line, they lost that lovin' feeling.

How did ME3 lose passion? In fact, the character development AND the character moments show incredible passion. In fact the Thane's death scene alone shows your criticism about passion comes from a bulls ass. Nevermind the acclaimed Genophage cure and The Geth/Quarian section. Even the Cerebrus HQ section had passion, and even the London mission itself.

Lack of character development and lack of character particpation in the story IS A FLAW. When you are treating characters as information banks, or jhave shallow character development, it takes away from the story. For example, KOTOR II's cast actually have plot roles, unlike most of KOTOR's cast, who are just there. Bioware games struggle with character development and participation in the main plot with their characters. And in fact its the games fans whine about most that fix this problem....DA2 and ME3.

And lookie here...a bunch of people want to whine about how people like the game, in this case game reviewers....I wonder why I am so forceful.

And face it, Bioware doesn't want to make the same old conservatibve RPG anymore.

I said it had moments, some of the examples you listed being moments. Some may of still had their passion, but as a whole, I feel they lost it.

I saw no lack of character development in the past titles. I found nothing unnatural about an alien species telling another alien species about their culture and differences. I could guide the conversation to certain things within my options. I was not railroaded into dialogue by picking 1 or 2 options. I never found myself talking to anyone in the previous games and saying "Gee, this takes away from the story". You just met these characters. You formed a connection with them. You learn about them and their backgrouds, opinions on certain things, so on and so forth. Those connections cotinue on into the next games. Saying the first game had no character development makes me question if you have actually played it.

I haven't played KOTOR or KOTOR 2 in many years so I can't really comment on that.

I haven't seen many whine about the 75 Perfect. I've seen them question it. As in question the reviewers. From reading some of them, I'll admit, it does seem like they played a different game than I.

And if Bioware doesn't want to create an "conservative" RPG, fine. Just don't advertise it that way.

Except for the dueteragonist, like a Bastila, Dawn Star, or Alistair....or the tritagonist, like Carth or Sagacious Zu, Bioware characters do have character development problems....lets explain...

Either

A) They play very weak roles in the plot....for example most of the cast in DAO or KOTOR. This leads to the loss of a huge mechanism for character change, the actual plot.

They come in already mostly developed...Leliana is a huge example. She develops as a character far more in the DLC than she does in Dragon Age Origins. Most cast members come in this way.

C) There development is done through conversation only or they had a small side quest...this is very lazy and forced way to do character development. This also makes his or her development small at best.

ME1 is character stablishment, they just do not develop during the story. Thats the problem. Learning about them and their past is one thing...watching them grow is another. Just because you introduce a world doesn't mean you can't develop its characters. Thats a fallacy plain and simple.

And ME2 proves it....why is Liara so radically changed from ME1? Because the first game didn't do much in developing her character. Contrast this with going from ME2 to ME3, far more natural character development progression than between the first two games. She had to have a comic to fill in the character development gap from ME1 to ME2. Despite what you said Garrus should do in ME1, he becomes vigilante regardless in ME2, another gap.

ME2 is backwards from ME1, it does character development very well, but still weak plot participation. An improvement non the less. With DA2 and ME3, we get both character development AND plot participation. And ME3's new characters like Javik grow and change throughout the story. Notice how his views on the current cycle and his relationship with Liara changes and grows?

When Bioware introduces a new franchise, they must not fall into the trap of not developing characters (they need to establish AND develop) or establishing the universe not connecting it to the plot.

[txgoldrush]

VibrantYacht wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

VibrantYacht wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Aceor wrote...

Read the thread from start to end and reading txgoldrush postings just makes me sad.

People like him that cant see the flaws and have so much ignorance is just like talking to a wall.

Either paid or indoctrinated

And i wont reply to u cause its no use u wont listen,just argue

ME3 HAS flaws......but everyone is acting like Bioware's past games didn't, even ME1 and ME2.

I see the flaws, they are just not that big, except for the endings lack of clarity.

I don't think anyone would deny that past BioWare games have problems. They aren't the topic of this discussion though. Why would we discuss them now?

it matters because of the mindset people have of how grand Bioware was that can do no worng...until EA came along....then the criticism starts even though th epast games also had the same flaws.

And many flaws of the past games, such as weak character participation in the plot, the lack of character development, or the fact that characters hardly related to eachother, was fixed for ME3. The problem with ME2's weak plot because character development got too much emphasis was also fixed.

The Talking Codex nonsense was also fixed, characters relate in a far more natural way in ME3, although ME2 addressed this problem a bit as well. ME1 and DAO for instance had bad problems in how the characters come off as talking codex entries.

Well, that wasn't really a direct answer to my question but I'll respond to it anyway.
 
People had that mindset about BioWare because they produced excellent RPGs. They seemed to have moved away from it and this change occured about the same time they were bought by EA. I don't hate EA, but I think people put those two together.
What I mean by BioWare moving away from RPGs is their streamling of their games. The first problem with this is the violation of expectation. Meaning when we buy a BioWare game, we expect fantastic RPGs. Instead we get shooters. The second issue is actually more of a reinforcement of the previous point. They advertise their games as RPGs. Furthering the violation. This of course results in frustration on behalf of the fan base. If they want to make an action game that's fine, but it should be sold and marketed as much. The reason there is so much more outcry now though, is because this is the furthest they’ve been from RPG territory, but they still chose to market it as an RPG (or EA did, which causes more dislike of the publisher).
What I mean by streamlining is the removal of RPG elements. While I think on the surface these removals make appear to make sense, these removals add up and in fact remove player involvement in the story. An example of this is the auto dialogue. I can certainly understand why they did it and I understand them thinking it wouldn’t make much of a difference. However, the result of this removal is very negative for two reasons. The first of these problems is a lack of interest in conversations. Without having a say more often (even if that say is irrelevant in the long run), I feel less need to pay attention and without the conversations the game becomes a third-person shooter. The second problem is that it produces character problems in Shepard. The most crucial of which (which you might consider not auto-dialogue) is with the kid on Earth. No matter what type of Shepard you are playing as, it does not make sense for Shepard to care that much about one young civilian. In fact, in Lair of the Shadow Broker, Shepard uses this argument while Spectre Lady has a hostage. This applies especially to renegade Shepards. The game automatically and very blatantly assigns the players character (YOUR character) behaviors outside of your choices.
 
So that’s my take on your first sentence…
 
Second part of your response I’m not entirely sure how to respond because I think people vastly missed the point with their ME2 complaints. In my opinion, the problem with ME2 was that the story didn’t advance at all. We were at the same point at the end of ME2 as we were at the end of ME1. Apparently, in their attempts to find a reason for this problem, they said the emphasis on the characters was too great (apparently, according to you. Idk, I wasn’t around at that point). I do not get this criticism at all. The greatest strength of ME2 was its character development and exploration of the ME2 universe. Also, arguing that character focus ruined the plot is just… wrong. Characters make the plot no matter what story is being told.
Weak character interaction with the plot also doesn’t make much sense. It’s not about how the characters determine the outcome, it’s how the player determines the outcome by their choices. This is the biggest problem with the ending, in my opinion. The ending, instead of being a result of our choices, is a choice by itself. This removes the influence of every single previous choice the player made (which is why this is such a sucker punch to the player). So why are the characters important? They are important because of their relationship with Shepard. Each provides a unique viewpoint on a situation, and when relationships are built up with certain squad members, emotional decisions can trump logical ones. It all goes back to player influence and choice. ME3 took a very great part of that away.
 
That is my view on your second point…
 
As for the codex thing, I get where you’re coming from, but it seems like you’re making a problem where there isn’t one. I thought they came off fine in ME1 (didn’t play DA:O) and it was natural it would only get better throughout the series as the writers got to know the characters better and the players got to know the universe better. That’s really all I have to say about that.
 
That is my view on your third point…
 
The primary problems of ME3 are much more substantial than in previous BioWare games because of SEVERE violations of expectation and the more BioWare continues to stand by their game in the same way, the longer the backlash will continue.

First off, why do fans have such narrow mindsets in that they have to make a certain type of RPG an certain way. In fact Bioware has starting to be stuck in a rut, with them recycling plot points and character archtypes...but back to the subjects of RPGs...this is a fan problem, not a developer problem. And the elements that were criticized in ME1 were its RPG elements.

Second, ME3 was clearly advertised as an action RPG hybrid with the option to A) turn the game into a pure action with almost no dialogue choices or have story matter more and tone down the combat. Hell, it is a fact that there are more RPG elemnts and customizations than ME2.

As for Shepard, there is no character problems, just fan problems. For Renegade Shep, he even has limits, look at ME2 Overlord, even he finds Archer's actions against his brother disguisting. He is not a dark sided Jedi or a Closed Fist spirit monk...he is still a hero, still trying to save the galaxy. Fans just prop him into something he is not. Also, the kid is really a symbol....a death from the Reaper attack on Earth he sought to prevent. It smaybe not his life thats important, but his failure to protect earth. An even then, a hardened Reneagde can have moments of vulnerability. A huge reneagde option with Javik....Javik senses that he is lying, that Renegade Shep is troubled.

The problem is that fans are simply not flexible....and really Bioware is going more in the direction of TW2, with autodialogue, a more established protagonist, and dialogue only being choices and investigations.

Yes, character development and expanding the universe were MAJOR successes with ME2, HOWEVER, the game would have been far better if it tied these stories to the main plot, or had a stronger plot. In fact, I think ME3 improves the significance of some of ME2's moments such a sMordin's loyalty mission.

"As for the codex thing, I get where you’re coming from, but it seems like you’re making a problem where there isn’t one. I thought they came off fine in ME1 (didn’t play DA:O) and it was natural it would only get better throughout the series as the writers got to know the characters better and the players got to know the universe better. That’s really all I have to say about that."

The talking codex problem made Tali forgettable in ME1....instead of knowing her as a character, her feelings about everything, I got this talking codex on the quarians, their creation of geth, and their way of life. This is a bad way of characterizing. It is simply lazy as well, why can't this be explained in the story, why does it have to be in a character interaction.

Instead, let the story itself take care of the key elements, treat the characters as people that deal with these elements. ME1 didn't do a good job with most of its cast. I wonder why Wrex is a fan fave from ME1? Would he have been a favorite if he didn't get into a standoff with Shep on Virmire? This is the only time where really a character really reacts to a major plot point in a major way.

And bioware is going away from the talking codex entry, by either having the character have a stronger role in the plot or have significant character missions where they develop. This was DA2's strongest element....what they did right along with a lot they did wrong.