250 réponses à ce sujet

[chris fenton]

"Good" is very subjective.
I don't think it's very good.
I think if it weren't the conclusion to the trilogy, they would not have had as many neat story arcs and the game would have flopped just like DA2.
So no, in my opinion, it is not.

[chris fenton]

The Milky Waver wrote...

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.

ME2 was about 80% completed when Bioware was bought out. It's not relevent.
That's why it's good. 
Nothing to read here. 

[C9316]

EA ruins everything...

[NickelToe]

Guess if we disagree with OP we should remain silent.

...
...
...
...
...

[sevach]

After going through various stages, ranging from awesome, nerdrage, acceptance... i can honestly say ME3 is a 7.5 game imo, not a classic, not broken (in general) and a bit dissapointing.

Replay value is very low, given how linear (i get that they do this for better set pieces, but it needs to be better balanced or at least hid) the game is and how small is the impact of your decisions.
The auto dialog also needs stop, again, it kills roleplaying and replay value.
It gets a lot more and more irritating if you playthrough the game a second time, i don't think i can stomach a third.

Attempts at cheap emotional attachment (little kid really?), and those how do you feel moments all of a sudden, frankly dissapointing.

So, ME3 proves nothing, it's an average game honestly.

[MartinDN]

I still dont consider either me2 or me3 a good game, and especially not da2 so the answer is no, in my opinion. But atleast me2 had a relativeley coherent ending, and dialogue that wasnt automatic, even if you spent 40 hours on your ship checking to see if garrus had anything more to say...

I dont think many people get why we originally liked mass effect 1, you honestly think we cared about the ****ty combat and the inventory? And since when has an rpg had GOOD combat? (in a control sense) It was the characters, the story, the narrative and the setting there was no game like it. They threw all that out of the window in me3 and to an extent, me2, for a few more dollar bills.

[What a Succulent Ass]

...No.

[Il Divo]

OP, I think ME2 was already proof of that. It's just a question of whether they can put out the same quality of games consistently.

[Pedrak]

Il Divo wrote...

OP, I think ME2 was already proof of that. .

And I actually found it a lot better than ME3.

[yummysoap]

Yes, though I think EA moved ME3 from what could have been an A+ to an A-. It's obvious they put time-constraints on Bioware and pushed them into releasing earlier than they should have.

[Majin Paul]

I personally thought ME3 was a great game, I enjoyed every moment of it and it concluded several of the story lines I was interested in and in ways I was happy with and I thought there were improvements to the combat like the whole being able to use any weapon as any class but with need to manage weight. I don't know why so many people say the game wasn't good, the ending is the only thing I can think of negatively and that's just down to a lack of information, imo.

[SalsaDMA]

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.

That's because it's not a rpg.

For a cinematic rpg, go to ME, the first one. ME3 is a generic shooter and ME2 is something in the middle.

[yummysoap]

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

That's because it's not a rpg.

For a cinematic rpg, go to ME, the first one. ME3 is a generic shooter and ME2 is something in the middle.

I always told myself I'd never get involved in these sorts of arguments, but whaagh? ME3 had way more skill customization than ME2, as well as reintroducing weapon mods and the like. I can't see how anyone could make the argument that ME2 was more of an RPG than ME3.

[MartinDN]

yummysoap wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

That's because it's not a rpg.

For a cinematic rpg, go to ME, the first one. ME3 is a generic shooter and ME2 is something in the middle.

I always told myself I'd never get involved in these sorts of arguments, but whaagh? ME3 had way more skill customization than ME2, as well as reintroducing weapon mods and the like. I can't see how anyone could make the argument that ME2 was more of an RPG than ME3.

Less customisation, infact zero customisation of armour, a meagre amount of weapon mods which, lets be honest, did bareley anything beyond vanity anyway. Same goes with the skill customisation most of it did nothing as combat was easy. Almost no dialogue choices compared to other games, leads to no role playing ability with your character who you have fleshed out over the previous games. My renegade shepard, as an example, who is merciless to everyone, saluting, and basically sucking up the hackett - same as my paragon i might add - making me be friendly with everyone i meet, and then giving me a dialogue choice to be a total jackass all in the same conversation, there is no consistency.

Me2 also had way more quests, which is what me3 needed to give you a break from the constant shooting, and not only did it have more quests, they was more meaningful too, on more than one hub world. Not just go to the store pick up my reaper statue and bring it back please. Quests are the very backbone of the standard rpg. Theres a reason why skyrim is 200+ hours sidequests, 15 hours main quest.

Modifié par MartinDN, 23 avril 2012 - 04:31 .

[lillitheris]

Proof that they can? No.
Can they? No idea. EA should probably give them the time and resources needed to find out.

[Cadence of the Planes]

SalsaDMA wrote...

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.

That's because it's not a rpg.

For a cinematic rpg, go to ME, the first one. ME3 is a generic shooter and ME2 is something in the middle.

Disagree. ME3 is an RPG.

[Sebbe1337o]

I think ME3 is the proof of the opposite. Which Dragon Age 2 also is.

[Sebbe1337o]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

This^
ME3 is probably the most unpolished game Bioware has released, ever. Imo even DA2 was more polished, even though it was a lot worse.

Just think how much better the game would've been with maybe 2-3 months more development and polish. Even with the ending we have now that would've made a lot of difference for me at least.

[Chala]

Il Divo wrote...

OP, I think ME2 was already proof of that. It's just a question of whether they can put out the same quality of games consistently.

I agree with this guy.

[ReshyShira]

Mass Effect 3 is not an example of good games over EA. The longer they've been held by EA the worse their games get. It's not just the ending of Mass Effect 3 that was rushed, there's plenty of other parts that if you look closely show the obvious signs of a highly rushed project. What is more surprising is that ME3 wasn't even worse than it was.

[Khayness]

No.

If I have to guess who wanted Multiplayer and Kinect support, I'd say the publisher.

Multiplayer might be fun, but it's really basic and has so many flaws, it has to improve A LOT if they want to build on it, which would be resources well spent on things don't need to be in the game.

[Stormer90]

The game had much more potential. It is a shame it was squandered.

[SovereignWillReturn]

Everything Bioware did BEFORE EA was awesome.

So far, EA has ruined the following Bioware IPs.

Knights of the Old Republic
Mass Effect
Dragon Age

And now they're forcing Bioware to stop making RPGs, EA/Bioware is now making Command and Conquerors Generals 2.

[Sebbe1337o]

SovereignWillReturn wrote...

Everything Bioware did BEFORE EA was awesome.

So far, EA has ruined the following Bioware IPs.

Knights of the Old Republic
Mass Effect
Dragon Age

And now they're forcing Bioware to stop making RPGs, EA/Bioware is now making Command and Conquerors Generals 2.

You and Stormer90 has the right idea
I'm glad that not all remaining BSNers are bio d r o n e s.

[gXs_2]

Good games? Yeah, but GREAT games? Unfortunately no.

Look at ME1 and DA:O and then look at their respective sequels. On their own, the sequels are all pretty good, if safe. Compared to the originals though, it's a huge step backwards.