162 réponses à ce sujet

[GODzilla]

Elite Midget wrote...

Much of it is fact

No it's not.

[Father_Jerusalem]

ME 3 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

NightAntilli wrote...

- ME3 has inferior journal, less exploration than ME1, confusing ending, glitches like teleporting characters, lip-sync issues, too much disc swapping (X360 only), too many shallow side quests. 

Congratulations, in all your ME1 fanboyism, you managed to make one salient point about ME3. The disc swapping on 360 is, in fact, annoying.

However, that's a fault of the 360 hardware capabilities and I'm not sure how you can go ahead and blame BioWare for it (though I'm sure you'll try). I mean, the only other alternative would be to simply have them make a "360 Version" of ME3 (and ME2, by the way, also had a lot of disc switching) that's simply around half the game that PC and PS3 owners get.

Me... I'd prefer disc switching to getting half the game. But sure, it was a salient point.

So.... you only think he made one good point? Are you blind?
Because there was soooooo much more exploring than in ME1 wasn't there?
I loved the journal in ME3, way better than one that actually works isn't it?
I didn't want synthetics to kill organics, so i created synthetics to kill organics so tht organics wouldn't create synthetics that would kill organics. It makes perfect sense
How many proper side quests were there? A lot less than ME2 and most of them were sh*tty fetch quests.

No, I said he made one salient point. Not necessarily a good point, but a point nontheless. The journal works, use it in conjunction with the Citadel map.

I know that when there's an interstellar war about, I'm going to was time driving around in my 4x4 instead of fighting, yes? Exploration isn't in ME3 because it would be ridiculous in ME3. Sorry to break your heart there. 

If you change your second "kill" to "preserve", which were Starchild's actual motivations, then yes, your statement makes complete sense. 

And yes, there were less sidequests than in ME2, but that's because ME2 was mostly sidequests, so.... I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Note - fetch quests aren't sidequests. They're ME3's version of planet scanning or resource gathering. 

But thanks for playing.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Elite Midget wrote...

GODzilla_GSPB wrote...

Elite Midget wrote...

Not worth a buy, you can beat the game in a few days. it's the shortest ME game to date and there's no point in doing any of the side quests, replaying the game, or Multiplayer since you'll get the same endings unless you force yourself to grind the Multiplayer for a week which isn't all that fun since your Readiness will drop if you don't play every day. Even than you just get a short scene that doesn't really explain anything. The game is also the easiest out of all three, you can beat it without upgrading anything if you wanted.

Maybe a rent, but only if it's really cheap.

Be so kind and write a least an "imho" once in a while when you post, because I experienced everything what you said completely different, like 180° different. So imho ME3 is a good game, one that I will definitely replay and enjoy again.

Much of it is fact, but if you need me to tell you which is in my opinion than you have other issues.

much:
Adjective:A large amount: "I did not get much sleep"; "he does not eat much".
Adverb:To a great extent; a great deal: "did it hurt much?".


"Shortest ME game to date" - untrue.
"No point in doing any sidequests" - untrue.
"No point in replaying the game" - untrue.
"No point in Multiplayer" - untrue.
"Game is also the easiest" - untrue.

So, no. Not anywhere near "much" of it being fact. Or "some". Or, really, "any". 

Modifié par Father_Jerusalem, 08 mai 2012 - 11:00 .

[Ygolnac]

The endings are not the only problem.
1. Dozen of grinding fetch quests with horrible quest journal updates and eternal walking in the citadel to deliver them
2. Few SP mission with ridicously small maps designed with multiplayer in mind.
3. Chices you made in previous chapter does not matter at all.

In my opinion ME3 is the worst of the serie, also gameplaywise. I still prefear mako exploration than grinding those horrible fetch quests.

[HBC Dresden]

Ygolnac wrote...

The endings are not the only problem.
1. Dozen of grinding fetch quests with horrible quest journal updates and eternal walking in the citadel to deliver them
2. Few SP mission with ridicously small maps designed with multiplayer in mind.
3. Chices you made in previous chapter does not matter at all.

In my opinion ME3 is the worst of the serie, also gameplaywise. I still prefear mako exploration than grinding those horrible fetch quests.

1. Fair enough.
2. This is accurate for the N7 missions. This is NOT ACCURATE for the rest of the Single Player missions; are we even playing the same game?
3. They do on Tuchanka and Rannoch and on the Normandy. Not the ending though, I'll give you that.

Uhhh, the fetch quests is basically a quicker planet scanning. Doesn't take that much time, but if you prefer Mako grinding, that's your choice. Not me though.

[kumquats]

Why is everyone so angry about the Rachni Queen? If your not consequent with your decision, she will kill some workers on the Crucible, otherwise she will be very helpful. You loose EMS if you change your mind about her!
What's the problem with that? Should I not be allowed as a Renegade to have this awesome mission, just because I made a choice in ME1? This is ridiculous!

[DaJe]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

ME 3 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

NightAntilli wrote...

- ME3 has inferior journal, less exploration than ME1, confusing ending, glitches like teleporting characters, lip-sync issues, too much disc swapping (X360 only), too many shallow side quests. 

Congratulations, in all your ME1 fanboyism, you managed to make one salient point about ME3. The disc swapping on 360 is, in fact, annoying.

However, that's a fault of the 360 hardware capabilities and I'm not sure how you can go ahead and blame BioWare for it (though I'm sure you'll try). I mean, the only other alternative would be to simply have them make a "360 Version" of ME3 (and ME2, by the way, also had a lot of disc switching) that's simply around half the game that PC and PS3 owners get.

Me... I'd prefer disc switching to getting half the game. But sure, it was a salient point.

So.... you only think he made one good point? Are you blind?
Because there was soooooo much more exploring than in ME1 wasn't there?
I loved the journal in ME3, way better than one that actually works isn't it?
I didn't want synthetics to kill organics, so i created synthetics to kill organics so tht organics wouldn't create synthetics that would kill organics. It makes perfect sense
How many proper side quests were there? A lot less than ME2 and most of them were sh*tty fetch quests.

No, I said he made one salient point. Not necessarily a good point, but a point nontheless. The journal works, use it in conjunction with the Citadel map.

I know that when there's an interstellar war about, I'm going to was time driving around in my 4x4 instead of fighting, yes? Exploration isn't in ME3 because it would be ridiculous in ME3. Sorry to break your heart there. 

If you change your second "kill" to "preserve", which were Starchild's actual motivations, then yes, your statement makes complete sense. 

And yes, there were less sidequests than in ME2, but that's because ME2 was mostly sidequests, so.... I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Note - fetch quests aren't sidequests. They're ME3's version of planet scanning or resource gathering. 

But thanks for playing.

Exploration would make just as much sense in ME3 than in the other two games. Every game has overaching hypothetical time constraints.

Thanks to the useless journal and the quest decay system you are forced to run arround the citadel over and over again while flying arround the galaxy aimlessly trying to scan as many systems as possible.

How does that makes sense in the lights of a galactic war? How do any of the side missions make sense?
War assets? And why can't you find war assets in a more direct and immersive way than clicking arround on the galaxy map for hours?

And saying the journal works is like saying "here build a house with just this hammer, it's possible". It fails to give you crucial information and player comfort. It would maybe be ok 15 years ago but it doesn't hold up to todays standards at all.

Seriously, are you actually thinking about how your arguments hold up or are you just deperately trying to find some sort of reason to disagree with everyone...

Modifié par DaJe, 11 mai 2012 - 08:51 .

[Well]

wolfstanus wrote...

Wish amazon had a filter so you had to have bought the game through them in order to rate and make reviews. 90% of the reviews are bandwagon knee jerk upset because they took or to seriously. And expected a trailer like the halo trailers as actual gameplay and Miriam's of other stpoid thing. Including the thinking the game is the worst in video game history. There's 5 stars for a reason. 3 star is what me3 is. 90% of the game is AWESOME! Except the ending... 1 star derp :E

" Wish amazon had a filter so you had to have bought the game through them
in order to rate and make reviews. 90% of the reviews are bandwagon
knee jerk upset because they took or to seriously."

Prove your statement otherwise you're a liar.

Modifié par Well, 11 mai 2012 - 04:02 .

[digby69]

greggm2000 wrote...

Check back in a few months once the EC is out, to see how well it's been received. If it makes the ending bearable, and if there's closure, definitely buy ME3 then.. like you said, 95% (or rather, 99.9%) is really really good. If they can get rid of that awful, awful aftertaste that that remaining 0.1% leaves, you'll owe it to yourself to finish the trilogy.

And it should be a lot lot cheaper. I certainly regret spending £60 on the CE addition for the amount of game play I've done.

[sp0ck 06]

You're doing yourself a disservice by not playing the game based on amazon reviews and forum raging. Yes it has flaws: the journal and sidequests are hideous, and it is more linear than the previous games (although I think that's a not a flaw in ME3's case). But it doesn't have any more flaws than ME1 or 2 did (disregarding what you think of the ending), the gameplay is far and away the best in the series, and some of the missions are just incredible.

[Bocks]

Not even worth the pirate, in my opinion.

[Reqol]

Kinste wrote...

Oh I wish it were different. The reviews I've read share how wonderful 95% of ME3 is, and deplore the endings. I can't bring myself to play it...

I won't be buying this game, Bioware. I'm disappointed already.

-a series fan with many hours sunk into ME1 and ME2

If you like ME1 and ME2 then one of the worst things you can do is not buying the game because the general concensus of the obtuse internet community is that the ending sucked. I won't force you to buy it, it's your money afterall. But you can't enjoy the game if you start with a negative and biased attitude because all you've heard beforehand is how they've "ruined the franchise".

I think the only reason fans didn't like the ending is because their decisions didn't really impact the outcome. But I find the ending satisfying and the journey towards it makes for a great experience. Add to that some incredibly complex moral and ethical choices and you've got a very good story in my opinion.

Modifié par Reqol, 11 mai 2012 - 08:24 .

[paul165]

If the only reason you have not to played the game is the ending just wait for the EC and see if that helps.

However the game does have other serious issues - journal, EMS, face import, day one DLC, scanning mini"game", autodialogue etc...etc ad nauseum that make it difficult to unconditionally recommend. The only reasons to play the game are Tuchanka and Rannoch and youtube does a very good job of covering that for you.

I would argue that even without the ending it is significantly weaker than ME2 with the ending well...there are other uses for your money.