250 réponses à ce sujet

[Mathias]

Even without the horrid ending, i didn't like the game as much as the other two.

1. Autodialogue
2. RPG elements gutted even further
3. Shorter than ME2
4. LIs as a whole were handled pretty poorly
5. No exploration
6. Lazy eavesdropping fetch sidequests
7. Only 1 hub to visit

[The Love Runner]

simfamSP wrote...

NOTICE:

IF YOU ARE:

STILL PISSED OF ABOUT THE ENDING.
CAN NOT FORM AN OPINION WITHOUT BIAS.
GENERALLY DON'T LIKE BIOWARE ANYWAY.
ARE INFECTED WITH BW NOSTALGIA.

DO NOT BOTHER POSTING.

AND PLEASE, READ MY POST BEFORE RESPONDING.

So it's not ideal to still be mad at the ending, to have a biased opinion, to voice if you're not happy with a company, and to remember good times? I'm not sure what else I can say...

[AkiKishi]

Cadence of the Planes wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Even ignoring the ending. The game lacks polish, and a lot of the design is poor.

Disagree. The game is more polished than most, and has a cinematic feel unlike any other RPG I've played.

My advice is to play more games then. Because ME3 is anything but polished.

[The Milky Waver]

ME2 was proof, but EA really rushed Bioware on ME3, and it didn't end well. The plot is bad and the ending caused a massive outrage.

[Fireblader70]

Ignoring the ending, I bet people wouldn't have been nearly so upset by these problems with 'Mass Effect 3' if 'Dragon Age 2' hadn't turned out like it did.

If we throw human psychology into the mix, there is a high chance that many people would have been worried that Bioware may 'ruin' the series, and therefore the problems (which are no different to the problems with ME1 and ME2) stand out more.

Every time someone lists the 'many' flaws with the game, it reinforces this point to me. Of course, this is simply my perspective, but it's as if people subconsciously want to get back at EA for their business practices and are using ME3 to do so, even though it may be of a similar quality to its predecessors.

Overall, I think there are flaws with 'Mass Effect 3', yes, but in the same way that ME1 and ME2 had their flaws. I think Bioware can do perfectly fine under EA, and this game proves it.

[AkiKishi]

Fireblader70 wrote...
Overall, I think there are flaws with 'Mass Effect 3', yes, but in the same way that ME1 and ME2 had their flaws. I think Bioware can do perfectly fine under EA, and this game proves it.

It has more to do with ME3 feeling like a step back from ME2 rather than a step forward.

ME2 was more of a step sideways from ME, but still very good at what it did.

You can say the same thing about DA2 and DA as well. DA2 was a big step back from DA , without being able to establish an identity which is something ME2 managed and then some.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 avril 2012 - 01:13 .

[Fireblader70]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...
Overall, I think there are flaws with 'Mass Effect 3', yes, but in the same way that ME1 and ME2 had their flaws. I think Bioware can do perfectly fine under EA, and this game proves it.

It has more to do with ME3 feeling like a step back from ME2 rather than a step forward.

ME2 was more of a step sideways from ME, but still very good at what it did.

You can say the same thing about DA2 and DA as well. DA2 was a big step back from DA , without being able to establish an identity which is something ME2 managed and then some.

'Mass Effect 3' is a step backwards in what way? I'm curious to see what you think.

[Ericus]

I think ME3 was a good game (8/10), but not a 'great' game like the first two in the series. And that's without factoring in the endings.

Just a couple of examples:
- the fetch quest mechanic didn't really work out - I probably only heard about 10% of the conversations that sent me off on those quests, breaking my immersion
- Harbinger not having a single line of dialogue was a huge missed opportunity after ME2 spent the entire game building him up as the main antagonist
- the exploding heads for all those Cerberus troops was a bit vulgar and over the top.

That's just three things off the top of my head. Again, don't get me wrong. I liked ME3, so none of these things were deal breakers on their own. But when combined with the ending, it means to me that ME3 did not live up to its predecesors.

[AkiKishi]

Fireblader70 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...
Overall, I think there are flaws with 'Mass Effect 3', yes, but in the same way that ME1 and ME2 had their flaws. I think Bioware can do perfectly fine under EA, and this game proves it.

It has more to do with ME3 feeling like a step back from ME2 rather than a step forward.

ME2 was more of a step sideways from ME, but still very good at what it did.

You can say the same thing about DA2 and DA as well. DA2 was a big step back from DA , without being able to establish an identity which is something ME2 managed and then some.

'Mass Effect 3' is a step backwards in what way? I'm curious to see what you think.

Less of everything sums it up.

[Soaringeagle78]

You forgot a " 't " after " can " in the title.

[KDD-0063]

No, and I am not talking about the ending.

This picture sums it up nicely.

[Fireblader70]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Fireblader70 wrote...
Overall, I think there are flaws with 'Mass Effect 3', yes, but in the same way that ME1 and ME2 had their flaws. I think Bioware can do perfectly fine under EA, and this game proves it.

It has more to do with ME3 feeling like a step back from ME2 rather than a step forward.

ME2 was more of a step sideways from ME, but still very good at what it did.

You can say the same thing about DA2 and DA as well. DA2 was a big step back from DA , without being able to establish an identity which is something ME2 managed and then some.

'Mass Effect 3' is a step backwards in what way? I'm curious to see what you think.

Less of everything sums it up.

Interesting. If that's how you feel, then cool.

I, however, thought that the skills, weapon and armour customisation were improved. I also thought the layout of missions was expanded upon through use of ladders, wide areas and even controllable mechs. The missions were also bigger in scale, from what I can remember.

Granted, there were less missions overall (still a lot), and many fetch quests, but the quality of the others seemed to be up to the same standards and perhaps even more so than ME1 and ME2.

Choice seemed to be prevalent in the game, much like the previous instalments. Auto-dialogue, while annoying at times, did not prevent the ability to choose your many responses for the rest of the game.

This is how I saw the game.  Not less of everything, as you feel, but instead more of some aspects and less of others, such as dialogue choice, but they were not reduced enough to cause any serious damage.

Something has to be causing this difference in opinion... that's what interests me.

[bluewolv1970]

I thought this was a joke thread...

[spirosz]

Of course they can, but when they're forced to rush certain aspects, it shows - that is the problem.

[Oldbones2]

I don't hate EA, nor do I believe ME 3 is the perfect game even disregarding the ending.

Overall, I think its too soon to tell if Bioware can continue its winning streak after the merger.

[fchopin]

ME3 is a good game so the answer is obviously yes they can make good games under EA.

[spirosz]

simfamSP wrote...

I hate EA, I'll put that out without second thoughts. But I also know that BioWare need EA. 

On the bolded part, no they don't - All their titles before being included with EA were outstanding IMO, now they're good, but not what they used to be.  

Modifié par spiros9110, 23 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[RukiaKuchki]

I think there is a lot of misplaced nostalgia for ME1. It was a great but highly flawed game. The controls during combat were awful and some of the RPG elements (particularly the inventory system) were just painful. What saved it was the great (if not exactly unique) story, the memorable characters and the breadth of the creative vision of Bioware. A lot of the technical limitations in the ME series are because of the Unreal engine - it's super powerful but it's not really meant for a game like this (i.e. a long game with many hours of cinematics, dialogue choices, different environments). This was a design choice and no amount of additional time to polish the game would remove a lot of these bugs.

I think ME3 is a great (but flawed) game, and it offers something that the AAA games that sell the seriously big numbers do not - great characters that you care for. Does anyone really care about Soap MacTavish, or Marcus Fenix? To me, the hysteria over the ending proves the point that ME 3 is on the whole a good game - why would there have been such an outpouring of emotion if the ending didn't match the quality of the rest of the experience, or the un-naturally high expectations of the audience? I think Bioware will continue to make good games under EA, although they will have to evolve to attract a larger audience. ME3 is the first manifestation of that evolution and despite the ending controversy, the sales figures are proof that it's working. Companies need to make a consistent profit to survive (it's naive to think otherwise) - just look at how many studios have folded in the last couple of years despite modest successes with their games. The core fans alone, while (self) important, are not enough to sustain a business in the long term.

[StabGuy]

PDesign wrote...

ME3 is the worst BioWare EaWare game.

EaWare lol....

I dunno the point of these topics. People go from a state of caring (posting their feelings) to not caring (not posting at all), the transition is a decision.

'Fan loyalty' is a thing of the past. Human beings have lost so much respect for one another that it just doesn't work either way anymore.

[Sgt Stryker]

ME3 is a good game, relative to other EA releases. However, it doesn't hold a candle to previous Bioware games.

[AkiKishi]

Fireblader70 wrote...
Interesting. If that's how you feel, then cool.

I, however, thought that the skills, weapon and armour customisation were improved. I also thought the layout of missions was expanded upon through use of ladders, wide areas and even controllable mechs. The missions were also bigger in scale, from what I can remember.

Granted, there were less missions overall (still a lot), and many fetch quests, but the quality of the others seemed to be up to the same standards and perhaps even more so than ME1 and ME2.

Choice seemed to be prevalent in the game, much like the previous instalments. Auto-dialogue, while annoying at times, did not prevent the ability to choose your many responses for the rest of the game.

This is how I saw the game.  Not less of everything, as you feel, but instead more of some aspects and less of others, such as dialogue choice, but they were not reduced enough to cause any serious damage.

Something has to be causing this difference in opinion... that's what interests me.

See graph posted above.

<edit> and below.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 23 avril 2012 - 03:06 .

[OdanUrr]

KDD-0063 wrote...

No, and I am not talking about the ending.

This picture sums it up nicely.

Wow... are these numbers accurate?