239 réponses à ce sujet

[txgoldrush]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Wow, nitpick much guys? You can't seriously tell me that this game isn't above par, especially when compared to the rest of today's industry. You think everything in here is bad, go play a Bethesda game then come talk to me. Why is everyone so hung up on side quests? I'm sure trying to stop the Reapers is a bit more important than mowing down faceless mercs for 10 hours. I mean, the ME1 system removed any tension I had in that game. "Saren's trying to bring the Reapers here, guess I'll go look for minerals and kill Nassna's sister. I'm sure he'll wait for me to finish up with all that stuff." Seriously. The bugs aren't noticable unless you're actively looking for bugs and if you REALLY think it's that bad, again, go try out a Bethesda game. Also, would you rather have auto-dialogue or the empty dialogue wheels of ME1 and 2. How many times did Joker tell you he fractured his thumb? He tells me at least 10 times during an average play of ME2.

I will grant you the journal though, that thing sucked.

Ultimately, a 10 means there is no question that you should buy the game. From my experience with the game, I'd agree with them. Others (most of the forum) would rather snap the disc in half and poop on Hudson's doorstep. Many of you guys hate this game, I wonder why you keep hanging around here. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but why spend so much time talking about something you don't like? Seems like wasted energy. You only have negative things to say about the game and the people that worked on it. Try some positivity, it wouldn't kill ya.

bingo

and the common criticism from reviewers was the journal....

[Muhkida]

Imperium Alpha wrote...

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

It's sad yet ironic how this pretty much answers the OP's question.

So much better than the TL;DR flaming that went on for about 8 pages.

Modifié par Muhkida, 22 avril 2012 - 04:01 .

[Whapa]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Wow, nitpick much guys? You can't seriously tell me that this game isn't above par, especially when compared to the rest of today's industry. You think everything in here is bad, go play a Bethesda game then come talk to me. Why is everyone so hung up on side quests? I'm sure trying to stop the Reapers is a bit more important than mowing down faceless mercs for 10 hours. I mean, the ME1 system removed any tension I had in that game. "Saren's trying to bring the Reapers here, guess I'll go look for minerals and kill Nassna's sister. I'm sure he'll wait for me to finish up with all that stuff." Seriously. The bugs aren't noticable unless you're actively looking for bugs and if you REALLY think it's that bad, again, go try out a Bethesda game. Also, would you rather have auto-dialogue or the empty dialogue wheels of ME1 and 2. How many times did Joker tell you he fractured his thumb? He tells me at least 10 times during an average play of ME2.

I will grant you the journal though, that thing sucked.

Ultimately, a 10 means there is no question that you should buy the game. From my experience with the game, I'd agree with them. Others (most of the forum) would rather snap the disc in half and poop on Hudson's doorstep. Many of you guys hate this game, I wonder why you keep hanging around here. I'm not saying you shouldn't, but why spend so much time talking about something you don't like? Seems like wasted energy. You only have negative things to say about the game and the people that worked on it. Try some positivity, it wouldn't kill ya.

The reason a lot of us still come to the boards and respond to things has to do with the fact that we loved this series, we are holding onto hope that the EC will put our fears to rest and that we will be able to love this series once again.  Seriously, BioWare should be loving the fact that they made a universe which TONS of people connected with and put up on a pedestal.  

Granted 10 out of 10 should just mean no doubt you should buy this game, thats normally how I look at it.  For me I don't hate the game, I hate the end of the game, and unfortunately that is the part that sticks with you.  Try as you might, you have to finish a story and the ending is what determines if you found the journey worthwhile.  
It would be like reading a fantasy novel, coming across an epic battle half way through the book and after the fight is over going, "well that was a fantastic book, no matter what happens next this makes the book worthwhile".  And it does, to that point.  You have to finish things, and it doesn't have to be all rainbows and sunshine, but honestly, you have to have an ending that satisfies your audience.

As for the positive, yeah the game was fun for me up to a point and once that point passed I really didn't like the fact that I bought the CE, or that I pre-ordered, or that I invested all that time into it.  And unfortunately for BioWare from my viewpoint, that point of no return was right at the end.  Which is what I will remember the most.

[FilmDirector554]

Muhkida wrote...

Imperium Alpha wrote...

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

It's sad yet ironic how this pretty much answers the OP's question.

So much better than the TL;DR flaming that went on for about 8 pages.

[Asrayl]

Kaelef wrote...

If you grade the ending with the same weight as every other part of the game (i.e. it's no more/less important than the rest), then the game is nearly perfect. Unfortunately, the ending should weigh much more than the rest of the game.

Actually, no. Not even close. Let's put aside the ending entirely. For the sake of this argument it'll stand as a ten, regardless of my, or anyone else's personal feelings on it.

How about the quest system? Was that well executed, engaging or relevant? Was it even "on par" with other games of the genre?

The journal/quest log? Was that well executed? Did it provide useful information, or any kind of organization? Were you at any point able to look at the information therein, and say "oh, right. I was supposed to take this to that guy on this floor of the citadel."? Was its execution even -on par- with other games in similar genres?

There were a lot of claustrophobic maps. How many times do you recall ducking behind a piece of cover in a choke point and just picking off this enemy and that as they popped in and out of their cover like a game of whack-a-mole?

Were your powers particularly relevant? Did you ever feel like you had to think strategically? Even for a run-of-the-mill action game, when you're given a power or ability it generally has some sound strategic deployments and usefulness. Seriously, you could go through the entire game with a pistol and never use a power... and probably not even break a sweat if you're any good. (Might be my next challenge round)

As an action game, putting aside RPG elements such as characters, dialogue, and plot... at best, Mass Effect is somewhere between seven and eight. It's a pretty average execution, nothing new under the sun, and enough problems with the basic systems to really prevent it from shining. It's missing some final polish, and quality control. It's not -broken- or -failed-, but it's just not that great.

It didn't deserve -one- perfect score, let alone seventy five. Even without taking the abysmal ending into account.

[Tazzmission]

the game imo deserves a 9 or 9.5

the ending shouldnt take away the greatness wich was the 99% of the story and gameplay guys


and hey some sites may give perfect scores for sponsors its possible but its also possible that they actually do like it

Modifié par Tazzmission, 22 avril 2012 - 04:10 .

[VibrantYacht]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Let me preface my argument by saying that anything I say will be inconsequential to you. Neither of our views will change and we’ll just go back to square one. Ok, now that this all means nothing, I think I’m ready to begin.
 
This is just going to be a quick response though because you seemed to have a recurring point. That it is the fan’s problem (and your antagonistic signature reaffirms this). I don’t necessarily disagree. But without the fans the developer cannot exist (and vice versa I suppose). I’m not saying BioWare has to bend to the demands of their fans, but they should advertise their games properly. Maybe they did this time around, but it doesn’t change the fact that when you slap on the Mass Effect name, people expect a Mass Effect game (what the previous games offered). I, for one, felt it didn’t deliver on either of the strengths of the first two.
The problem with BioWare fixing things in Mass Effect is that instead of actually fixing them, they remove them altogether. I don’t believe this is the way to go about fixing things that need tuning up. After all you don’t get a new car if it has a dent or even just one fixable problem. I know you’ll say there is more than one problem, but the point of my analogy is that removing a source of criticism is not the way improve upon it. Just like in life. See? It all comes around in the end.
 
… also I think you skipped some of my points.
... also I'm departing the forums.

[MegumiAzusa]

Very much agree on txgoldrush's comments, especially the DA2 part. In DA2 (and DAO) you really think which character you take for a quest because they can agree or disagree with you and certain characters leave at some points if they hadn't the chance to agree with you in a sufficient amount.
In ME1 and 2 it's mostly a decision which voice you like the most reading the same dialog. ME3 is the first ME that has really different conversations for some characters. for example the much underrated Vega has some really hilarious moments like or the "there goes the next shadow broker" with Liara.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 22 avril 2012 - 04:16 .

[KingKhan03]

8.5/10 it's a good game it isn't the be all end all of videogames.

[spirosz]

75 perfect scores, thousands of displeased fans - which is more important...

[MegumiAzusa]

spiros9110 wrote...

75 perfect scores, thousands of displeased fans - which is more important...

The Firelord

No seriously, that's a bad comparison. When there are 75 perfect scores there are 75 perfect scores. It doesn't depend on the numbers of fans who disagree. It's pure logic that they wouldn't make a huge banner "MASS EFFECT 3 - thousands of displeased fans! Buy now!"
Just because someone would rate something bad doesn't mean I can rate is near perfect. Personal taste, you know?



Btw I've never noticed and heared of that journal bug or whatever, what do you guys mean by that?

[Sanunes]

To be honest if you don't like Mass Effect getting perfect scores that is fine, but that means the review industry as a whole needs to be completely overhauled for too many games are getting high scores when they don't deserve it. Do I believe Mass Effect 3 was perfect, no, but there are many other games that I have played that have gotten perfect scores that I felt were undeserving as well.

[Luigitornado]

Why do you idiots care?

ME3 is still better than most games out there, even WITH the current ending.

[warrior256]

Sanunes wrote...

To be honest if you don't like Mass Effect getting perfect scores that is fine, but that means the review industry as a whole needs to be completely overhauled for too many games are getting high scores when they don't deserve it. Do I believe Mass Effect 3 was perfect, no, but there are many other games that I have played that have gotten perfect scores that I felt were undeserving as well.

I agree that the review industry needs to be redone. Perhaps instead of professional reviewers, sites should just offer the opinion of fans who paid for the game. Even if they may not rate the game fairly, I get a better idea of the pros and cons of a game then I would with a paid reviewers. Plus i'm sick of seeing COD games getting 8 or 9 out of 10. Seriously?

[shurikenmanta]

IF IT DIDNT GET A 0/10 THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY BRIBED HODORHURRRRRR

[Guglio08]

txgoldrush wrote...

Guglio08 wrote...

Everything gameplay related - the actual third person shooting, the weight system, the power upgrade system, etc - is pitch perfect in ME3. It's not the best third person shooting ever (that goes to Vanquish), but it's very clearly Mass Effect, and its level of polish is very high.

Everything story related - the characters, the actual plot, the side quests, etc - are better in ME2. Also the ME2 ending is a perfect sci-fi ending. ME3's ending is not anti-sci-fi, but it is bizarre and not very good.

90% (made up but probably accurate statistic) of reviews are based on the gameplay, not the story, writing, and related elements.

The plot  and characters are better in ME3, except the ending. The plot of ME2 was minimal.

ME3 is the only game that intergrates the characters with the plot well....ME1 was all plot with very little character  particpation (really recruitment and Virmire is really the only times where squaddies had impact on the plot), and ME2 was all character development, the plot was weak and minimal.

Characters and story are inseparable. The ME2 story wasn't minimal, it was clever. The Collectors only have four missions because they are enigmatic and the player is meant to question their motives. We don't know anything about why they are grabbing humans until the Suicide Mission.

ME2 is often compared to The Empire Strikes Back - a dark second chapter that bridges the story together and introduces pieces to set up the finale. What was the plot of Empire? Not a whole lot, actually. Most of the movie is about the characters and their struggles. And there's the big reveal right at the end.

Also remember that with the exception of James Vega, every character is a returning one, so it's not like they had to do major work to get them into the story. And Vega knows Shepard before the game begins anyways.

[SirBob1613]

I know how they got them. Casey walks down bioware HQ hallway. Hey guys did you like the ending.  YEAH WE DID. Ea has gun pointed at there backs.  well maybe not the Ea part

Modifié par SirBob1613, 22 avril 2012 - 04:44 .

[viperabyss]

txgoldrush wrote...

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..

Glad we sort that out that. I never said Bioware's other games were bug free, but comparatively, ME3 has much more bugs, as well less complicated bugs that Bioware should've caught during their testing.

Vanguard has always been buggy, especially in ME3. That is why you don't see people playing Vanguard anymore.

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).

Saying it is a flawed system is a massive understatement. It is practically non-existent. Bioware could've taken that entire system out, and it wouldn't impact significantly to the game play. Sure, there might not be long side quest contents (qualitative), but there are a lot of side quest (quantitative). So yes, it does impact the game play, and should be knocked down for it. And just because you can get around it, doesn't mean it is free from blame, isn't it? ME2 also has bugs, yet I don't see you vindicating it, isn't it?

Let's be objective here. Is it an issue? Yes. Does it impact game play in a negative way? Yes. Are sidequest important enough to affect the outcome of the game? Yes. Then by all account, ME3 should be punished for it.

I'll address side quests in ME later.

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.

The point is, I never said there are less interaction between characters in ME3. I acknowledge that this is one of ME3's strong suits. However, the fact remains that there are simply a lot less content when it comes to dialogue between you and the character. Most of the time, they make 2~3 short lines concerning the current situation, and then they start to repeat themselves. It is unsatisfying and unacceptable, given what ME2 used to do.

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.

No. Character establishment is when we first meet them. Every new character will need to be established, but the important part is how deep. In COD-like games, there is character establishement, but not character development. In ME, our perception of Wrex went from a mercenary who kills for money, to someone who genuinely cares about the genophage and the future of his people; our perception of Garrus went from someone who doesn't like to follow the rules, to the revelation that he has a father who does. These are all character development.

Another term for character development is called character creation.

Garrus, Liara, and Tali were different in ME2 from ME because all of them have "experience the world more" after Shepard's death. Garrus became a vigilante who has a squad of his own; Liara went from a simple archaeologist to an information broker, and Tali went from just another Quarian on the Pilgramage to a well-respected researcher. Also, keep in mind that they spent far more time on their own (~2 years) than with Shepard. Of course we're going to see massive improvement of characterization between the two games.

On the other hand, the time elapsed between ME2 and ME3 is only a couple months, so of course the characters at the end of ME2 will be the same as the character at the beginning of ME3.

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.

ME was not a sandbox game, but it is closest to sandbox format than the other two games. Furthermore, most RPG games do feature side quests that are not inline with the main quest. For instance, the side quests in Skyrim involves becoming Thanes of various different cities, as well as fetching some plants for some characters. Those side quests are not inline with the main quests, but nobody is complaining, isn't it? In addition, like I said earlier, ME is not a plot driven game, but rather a character / background driven game. Establishing the universe increase the immersive experience. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose.

Cerberus originally started out as an Alliance black ops, so of course they wouldn't be the one on Feros, since Feros researchers focused on Thorians. Furthermore, Cerberus was not written as a villan in the first place. Putting them on Feros instead of Exo-Geni would be counter productive.

ME does lack the urgency ME3 have, in terms of narrative pace, but that doesn't mean it is a plot hole. ME was indeed originally designed to be an open world for you to explore (similar to Elders Scroll: Skyrim), hence the amount of hubs, as well as the size of Citadel. As a player, you were supposed to piece together the puzzles. ME does offer that experience that ME3 doesn't.

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

I didn't know Quarian / Geth relationship was part of the main theme in the first game. What was established in the first game was, "
Saren and Sovereign is trying to wipe out the galaxy.  Geth is working for Saren / Sovereign. Kill Geth". In fact, Geth remains an enemy until the second half of ME2. 

By that logic, then we can also complain the fact that ME did not explore Krogan / Turian rift, since you know, you have both on your ship. The simple fact is, it is irrelevant.

[mirage2154]

Nothing will change the fact, no matter how many "perfect scores" there are.

[BiancoAngelo7]

Firecell11 wrote...

75 perfect scores my a**

I second this.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Critics are paid by magazines to sell games.

[Marixus99.9]

Biotic_Warlock wrote...

GhostV9 wrote...

75 perfect scores, countless disappointed forum users.

Fixed

Doesn't take long to find those that don't like the ending in other areas beside BSN, but they don't care as much either. All it takes is a simple dislike to turn their attention to other games. The frequent posters here are obsessed though.

[QuantumSheep13]

There were problems in ME and in ME2 but the unfortunate truth is that ME3 has more, somewhat noticable issues.

I've been a fan of the ME series from the beginning, but that hasn't made me blind to the problems present in each game. ME could get a tad repetitive with its planet exploration and ME2 had virtually no plot, aside from "get a team and defeat the Collectors". ME3, to me, just seemed like a step backwards from ME2. Less squad members (with relationships no deeper than they were in ME2, despite what the developers said), a somewhat lazy sidequest system and a plot that was built entirely upon a convenient superweapon that was not at all alluded to in the previous games (it turns up at the beginning of ME3, but only so it doesn't seem like a complete asspull).

And then there is the ending, which made me laugh out loud when I first experienced it simply because I could not believe that Bioware could stuff up so badly.

This game's a 7 out of 10 from me, although I'd be tempted to give it a 6 since the ending is almost enough to retroactively ruin the game experience. Professional reviewers are far from a reliable source anymore, considering the biases involved ("better not talk crap about an EA game since they give us advertising revenue!")

Modifié par QuantumSheep13, 22 avril 2012 - 05:34 .

[txgoldrush]

"Glad we sort that out that. I never said Bioware's other games were bug free, but comparatively, ME3 has much more bugs, as well less complicated bugs that Bioware should've caught during their testing.

Vanguard has always been buggy, especially in ME3. That is why you don't see people playing Vanguard anymore."


Did it have plot stoppers? No. Did it have save corruption bugs like DAO? No. Does it have many bugs as DA2 did? No. Once again exaggerations. You are plainly and utterly incorrect.


"Saying it is a flawed system is a massive understatement. It is practically non-existent. Bioware could've taken that entire system out, and it wouldn't impact significantly to the game play. Sure, there might not be long side quest contents (qualitative), but there are a lot of side quest (quantitative). So yes, it does impact the game play, and should be knocked down for it. And just because you can get around it, doesn't mean it is free from blame, isn't it? ME2 also has bugs, yet I don't see you vindicating it, isn't it?

Let's be objective here. Is it an issue? Yes. Does it impact game play in a negative way? Yes. Are sidequest important enough to affect the outcome of the game? Yes. Then by all account, ME3 should be punished for it."

And part of judgement is how much does it impact the game? Reviewers think it is minimal, that is the point. You do not need to play the side quests to beat the game without blowing Earth up. In the grand scheme of things, they are worth very little EMS and Rep.

There is a difference between problems you can ignore or get around, and problems entrenched in the experience, like ME1's bad inventory system or DA2's recycling dungeons. You can easily get around ME3's journal flaws, not so with ME1's stupid inventory system or DA2's recycling dungeons.

Thats why the scoring impact is minimal on reviews.

"The point is, I never said there are less interaction between characters in ME3. I acknowledge that this is one of ME3's strong suits. However, the fact remains that there are simply a lot less content when it comes to dialogue between you and the character. Most of the time, they make 2~3 short lines concerning the current situation, and then they start to repeat themselves. It is unsatisfying and unacceptable, given what ME2 used to do."

Other than the debates (which do repeat themselves in case you missed dialogue), they never repeat themselves until they run out of things to say. Its really no different from ME2's system. I wonder why the Garrus calibration jokes were prominent in ME3...oh wait, they are lampshading an ME2 flaw. Nevermind the fact that ME3 crew is far more opinionated about events in the story unlike
ME2, where only Kasumi and maybe Zaeed in some cases talked about events in the missions. You are forgetting the big fact that when ME1 and ME2 characters run out of things to say, they give you a stupid reason not to talk to you "I am not big on these talks" with Jacob for example. Nevermind the fact that they TALK TO EACHOTHER in ME3, a huge downside to ME2...at least ME1 had elevator scenes. Hell, they talk to eachother during missions much more in ME3.

"No. Character establishment is when we first meet them. Every new character will need to be established, but the important part is how deep. In COD-like games, there is character establishement, but not character development. In ME, our perception of Wrex went from a mercenary who kills for money, to someone who genuinely cares about the genophage and the future of his people; our perception of Garrus went from someone who doesn't like to follow the rules, to the revelation that he has a father who does. These are all character development.

Another term for character development is called character creation."

Wrong, that is character establishment....for example Garrus, it is established that he has a father who plays by the rules HOWEVER the development of that story comes in ME3 when his father convinces the Turians of the Reaper threat. Ashley's sister is established in ME1, but her storyline develops in ME3.

Wrex is really the only squadmate that changed from games beginning to games end in ME1 as he learns to trust Shepard.

Characters that do not develop are called "flat characters", thats what most ME1 crew are. ME3's crew are "round characters" who develop as the story goes along, such as Liara.

"Garrus, Liara, and Tali were different in ME2 from ME because all of them have "experience the world more" after Shepard's death. Garrus became a vigilante who has a squad of his own; Liara went from a simple archaeologist to an information broker, and Tali went from just another Quarian on the Pilgramage to a well-respected researcher. Also, keep in mind that they spent far more time on their own (~2 years) than with Shepard. Of course we're going to see massive improvement of characterization between the two games.

On the other hand, the time elapsed between ME2 and ME3 is only a couple months, so of course the characters at the end of ME2 will be the same as the character at the beginning of ME3."

Its because they were FLAT characters in ME1 and bioware had to make them ROUND somehow, so they forced the issue. And nevermind the fact that Liara had to hav a bridge comic.

"ME was not a sandbox game, but it is closest to sandbox format than the other two games. Furthermore, most RPG games do feature side quests that are not inline with the main quest. For instance, the side quests in Skyrim involves becoming Thanes of various different cities, as well as fetching some plants for some characters. Those side quests are not inline with the main quests, but nobody is complaining, isn't it? In addition, like I said earlier, ME is not a plot driven game, but rather a character / background driven game. Establishing the universe increase the immersive experience. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose."

Skyrim is a sandbox, ME1 is not....quit trying to make excuses, thats what you are doing. Hell, here is a sandbox game where most side quests do connect to the game's plot, themes, or conflicts...FALLOUT NEW VEGAS (which is far better than Skyrim). So, even in a sandbox environment, it can be done. Oh wait, the Ultima series has been doing sandbox with side quests that connect to the plot and themes for years. And ME1 is a plot driven game, it is definitely not a character driven one...that would mean you would have to develop its characters, which ME1 98% of the time does not. Even background based ones need sense into allowing nonurgency when there is a sense of urgency.

"Cerberus originally started out as an Alliance black ops, so of course they wouldn't be the one on Feros, since Feros researchers focused on Thorians. Furthermore, Cerberus was not written as a villan in the first place. Putting them on Feros instead of Exo-Geni would be counter productive.

ME does lack the urgency ME3 have, in terms of narrative pace, but that doesn't mean it is a plot hole. ME was indeed originally designed to be an open world for you to explore (similar to Elders Scroll: Skyrim), hence the amount of hubs, as well as the size of Citadel. As a player, you were supposed to piece together the puzzles. ME does offer that experience that ME3 doesn't."

Cerebrus wa salways a villian/shady organization, quit making excuses into why they are not introduced in the main plot of ME1. They were introduced by sloppy side quests.

Sorry but the side quest system in ME1 IS a plot hole....why the hell would a starship commander with an urgent mission get sidetracked with frivilous tasks such as wiping crime gangs for a shady woman. It doesn't make sense, it itself contradicts the urgency the plot requires. Any RPG that allows you to do frivolus non-urgent sidequests with a main quest that calls for urgency IS a plot hole. This is why ME1 quests ARE plot holes and The Witcher 2's sidequests are NOT. And really ME2 and ME3 have a far better sense of urgency...don't rescue your crew before you do a side quest, they die.....don't hurry and save the students of Grissom Academy, Cerebrus captures them and Jack....thats how its done.


"I didn't know Quarian / Geth relationship was part of the main theme in the first game. What was established in the first game was, "
Saren and Sovereign is trying to wipe out the galaxy. Geth is working for Saren / Sovereign. Kill Geth". In fact, Geth remains an enemy until the second half of ME2.

By that logic, then we can also complain the fact that ME did not explore Krogan / Turian rift, since you know, you have both on your ship. The simple fact is, it is irrelevant."

If you are going to establish a set of villians, you have to establish what created the villians and why they fight for the most part. ME1 relies on the suited talking codex information system to do it, instead of you know, putting it into the plot. Nevermind that Tali's personal mission in ME1 was a simple little fetch quest.