426 réponses à ce sujet

[Zjarcal]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Jumping the gun here, but in the ending they don't even bother to search for Shepard in the rubble until he plays king of the mountain. You know, the exact same thing that people are roasting ME3's Normandy scenes for right now.

F****ng hate ME1's ending... that scene is sooooooooo cheesy.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:11 .

[txgoldrush]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Me1's writing > ME3's writing

sorry had to be said.

WRONG

ME3 portraying its characters as multifacted, multidimenisionl, and more "human" beings >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>. ME1 treatement of characters as "talking codex entries".

Try Again.

Well naturally the character writing would get better overtime. I don't think that's what people mean when they say ME1 had better writing. On your point though a lot of people felt Ashley was much more bland in ME3. Her human nationalism and Christianity were definitely downplayed if not forgotten outright.

Because she develops out of it...its called character development. She is still spiritual however....nevermind that her family's story is back.

And ME1's writing is overrated, the game gets stuck in holding pattern until Virmire while failing to develop its characters except for Wrex...I wonder why many of the characters got all screen development between ME1 and ME2.

The dialogue of ME1 is far more wooden and less natural as well.

[Reofeir]

Also...Vigil. He was hinted nowhere until he came out of nowhere and said "HEY! USE THIS THING! IT OPEN UP CITADEL! KTHXBAI!"...? I may be completely wrong but if it wasn't for Mr. Random over there I don't think Shepard could of done much could he?

[LinksOcarina]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Mass Effect 1 had flaws, yes. But at least it had a logical and sound plot, with relatively few plot holes.

ME3 however is like cheese, cheese with giant holes in it, like... Swiss cheese!

Um...the plot of Mass Effect 1 was that this guy named Shepard saw a vision of a machine-like race that would destroy the galaxy, and had to stop a rouge agent of the ruling galactic body from making these machines invade the galaxy because of said dream.

And add to that you eventually have a green alien give you a cipher to make sense of everything, a cipher that was taken from a mutant plant monster, to fight this said rogue agent who is breeding an army of mutant aliens to fight for him, and rallied robotic aliens to do the same. 

I'm not sure thats a logical plot insomuch as its a straightforward plot that uses plot devices to make everything fit together. It fits in the games universe, but so does Mass Effect 3's plot....

ME1's plot was about the assault on Eden Prime and pursuit of a rogue spectre.

The stuff you refer to was mostly in the background until near the end.

So, we can ignore the core missions, the cipher, the conduit, and the vision Shepard saw, as well as Vigil, the events of Virmire, and Shepard becoming a Spectre.

Good thinking, considering that is what drove the plot forward, all to find Saren.

Mass Effect 1 is an Adventure movie, going into the unknown to find one bad guy.  Mass Effect 2 is a Dirty Dozen movie, a team of specialists with conflict who need to work together to survive. Mass Effect 3 is a war movie, uniting the galaxy for a singular cause. 

All three plots work for their games, but the main plot stringing them together is fairly weak overall. 

[Jamie9]

Zjarcal wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Jumping the gun here, but in the ending they don't even bother to search for Shepard in the rubble until he plays king of the mountain. You know, the exact same thing that people are roasting ME3's Normandy scenes for right now.

F****ng hate ME1's ending... that scene is sooooooooo cheesy.

Yeah, but if you sacrificed the council, you get an awesome political takeover plot with Udina. And Anderson disagrees!

But... that never came to fruition.

[The Heretic of Time]

Zenor wrote...

Udina made kind of sense, though we don't know every detail about him.

LOL no!  Udina and his coup was the very moment Mass Effect 3 jumped the shark.

No wait... nevermind, ME3 already jumped the shark with the introduction of the Crucible.

[N-Seven]

Ashley is a deeper and stronger character in ME3, imho. Just that she wears heeled boots. I don't mind heeled boots being mandatory in my space-operas though.

As far as gameplay goes, ME1 was the worst off. Terrible minigames and the combat was rough and clunky.

My favorite of the series was ME2 actually, because of the really large cast of squadmates. It felt like playing within a sci-fi television series. It still had some game sequences I didn't care for though, and the end battle was cheese.

[Memnon]

Are we really comparing ME1 and ME3? BW had no idea how successful ME1 would be, yet it was beloved by many and its sequels were sold based on how much everyone loved the original; ME3 has nearly killed the franchise and cause a firestorm of anger such that they actually released free DLC to explain the endings better.

[Terraforming2154]

Threads like this always make me feel a little sad.

Can't we all just agree that different facets of entertainment will appeal to different people? I don't think that people discussing which game had the best storyline or characters is ever going to prove anything other than personal preference.  ME1 is far from a flawless gem, but it was the one game in the trilogy that captured a tone that appealed to me on a personal level. I'm sure people can say the same thing about ME2 or ME3 if they prefer them.

Modifié par Terraforming2154, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:15 .

[clos]

Dude, ME1 ending blows the crap out of the ME3 EC. How dare you question the artistic integrity of the original ME1 writers? Now, the story was ok but the ending was awesome and the main reason why the whole franchise got started. I wish ME3 had such an epic ending.

[Jamie9]

Stornskar wrote...

Are we really comparing ME1 and ME3? BW had no idea how successful ME1 would be, yet it was beloved by many and its sequels were sold based on how much everyone loved the original; ME3 has nearly killed the franchise and cause a firestorm of anger such that they actually released free DLC to explain the endings better.

But I like ME3 more than ME1. 

[txgoldrush]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

the reason Mass Effect 2 is the best game in the series is the writing was focused on the best part of the series; the characters.

Seriously? You think a game that doesn't have an actual plot and largely revolves around the daddy issues of Shepard's goon squad makes a better game than a game with an actual story and plot?

Yep.

Because I actually gave a damn about the characters. In Mass Effect 1 only three out of the six squadmates had a personality; Ashley, Wrex, and arguably Liara.

In Mass Effect 2, save for Zaeed and Kasumi because of the nature of the DLC (although they were good too in retrospect)  can you not say that all 10 squadmates had personalities that were not only interesting, but dynamic enough to be engaged in their plights.

The main story was largely absent in Mass Effect 2, but the bookends of that said story are still threadbare as they were in Mass Effect 1. So really, if you were to look at the plots of both games, there is no difference at all because the main plot is roughly the same length. The side stuff is what matters. Mass Effect 3 is different because the main plot finally takes precedence here. Is that good or bad? Well, up until the finale it seemed to work for most people so I guess it is a good thing.

Point is, the game does have an actual plot and purpose. You choose to ignore it because it suits your argument. 

Mass Effect 3 is the ONLY game it the series that manages to combine BOTH strong plot prgression WITH character development.

ME1 had only plot progression, ME2 had only character development.

Nevermind that ME2 only develops their characters in a bubble when its their time, they aren't developed in the plot. ME3 develops their characters in the plot, especially the squad.

So in a way ME3's character development is even better than ME2's.

[N-Seven]

Stornskar wrote...

Are we really comparing ME1 and ME3? BW had no idea how successful ME1 would be, yet it was beloved by many and its sequels were sold based on how much everyone loved the original; ME3 has nearly killed the franchise and cause a firestorm of anger such that they actually released free DLC to explain the endings better.

I think you're overstating the negative reaction quite a bit.  It's only on these forums, where it's hottest, and that's just the nature of things: the contented ones tend to stay quiet and the angry make a lot of noise.

The whole ME series, 1 to 3, was a great series, although flawed, and I firmly believe the majority of fans feel the same way.

Modifié par N-Seven, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:17 .

[txgoldrush]

Zenor wrote...

Also...Vigil. He was hinted nowhere until he came out of nowhere and said "HEY! USE THIS THING! IT OPEN UP CITADEL! KTHXBAI!"...? I may be completely wrong but if it wasn't for Mr. Random over there I don't think Shepard could of done much could he?

THIS

Vigil comes out of completely nowhere....far worse than the Catalyst, who as actually introduced as a MacGuffin early in the game.

A lot of ME1 fans wear lead coats....

Modifié par txgoldrush, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:19 .

[savionen]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Zenor wrote...

Also...Vigil. He was hinted nowhere until he came out of nowhere and said "HEY! USE THIS THING! IT OPEN UP CITADEL! KTHXBAI!"...? I may be completely wrong but if it wasn't for Mr. Random over there I don't think Shepard could of done much could he?

Ugh, Vigil. I've seen people say they thought that was a highlight of the game, but all it seemed to me was "lol giant exposition dump from nowhere"! Boring as hell.

Still better than Catalyst though.

An exposition dump is a lot better than a literal dump.

txgoldrush wrote...

Zenor wrote...

Also...Vigil.
He was hinted nowhere until he came out of nowhere and said "HEY! USE
THIS THING! IT OPEN UP CITADEL! KTHXBAI!"...? I may be completely wrong
but if it wasn't for Mr. Random over there I don't think Shepard could
of done much could he?

THIS

Vigil comes out of
completely nowhere....far worse than the Catalyst, who as actually
introduced as a MacGuffin early in the game.

A lot of ME1 fans wear lead coats....

Because what Vigil had to say was pretty interesting. The Catalyst was poorly written and told you about how ME1 and ME2 didn't matter and how the Reapers were puppets.

Modifié par savionen, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:20 .

[Memnon]

Jamie9 wrote...

Stornskar wrote...

Are we really comparing ME1 and ME3? BW had no idea how successful ME1 would be, yet it was beloved by many and its sequels were sold based on how much everyone loved the original; ME3 has nearly killed the franchise and cause a firestorm of anger such that they actually released free DLC to explain the endings better.

But I like ME3 more than ME1. 

I don't begrudge you that, I'm not going to tell people what they should and shouldn't like. If the series started out with the quality of ME3, though, I don't know that there would be sequels. I actually really enjoyed ME3 up until the endings ... but those endings pretty much ruined it for me

Modifié par Stornskar, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:21 .

[Zjarcal]

Terraforming2154 wrote...

Can't we all just agree that different facets of entertainment will appeal to different people? I don't think that people discussing which game had the best storyline or characters is ever going to prove anything other than personal preference.

I agree with you... sadly, BSN will never agree to disagree.

[txgoldrush]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Zenor wrote...

Also...Vigil. He was hinted nowhere until he came out of nowhere and said "HEY! USE THIS THING! IT OPEN UP CITADEL! KTHXBAI!"...? I may be completely wrong but if it wasn't for Mr. Random over there I don't think Shepard could of done much could he?

Ugh, Vigil. I've seen people say they thought that was a highlight of the game, but all it seemed to me was "lol giant exposition dump from nowhere"! Boring as hell.

Still better than Catalyst though.

Drew K treated most of his characters like info dumps.....especially Tali.

Seriously, he is kinda overrated.

Say what you wan tabout Walters, but his team treated their characters as human, not as info dumps.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Jamie9 wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

ME1's plot was about the assault on Eden Prime and pursuit of a rogue spectre.

The stuff you refer to was mostly in the background until near the end.

Isn't that the reason people hate the Catalyst?

The difference is that all that converged very well at the end. All the visions, all the clues, everything made sense.

There was never any "space magic" either just conventional stuff taking on an epic importance.

[LinksOcarina]

txgoldrush wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

the reason Mass Effect 2 is the best game in the series is the writing was focused on the best part of the series; the characters.

Seriously? You think a game that doesn't have an actual plot and largely revolves around the daddy issues of Shepard's goon squad makes a better game than a game with an actual story and plot?

Yep.

Because I actually gave a damn about the characters. In Mass Effect 1 only three out of the six squadmates had a personality; Ashley, Wrex, and arguably Liara.

In Mass Effect 2, save for Zaeed and Kasumi because of the nature of the DLC (although they were good too in retrospect)  can you not say that all 10 squadmates had personalities that were not only interesting, but dynamic enough to be engaged in their plights.

The main story was largely absent in Mass Effect 2, but the bookends of that said story are still threadbare as they were in Mass Effect 1. So really, if you were to look at the plots of both games, there is no difference at all because the main plot is roughly the same length. The side stuff is what matters. Mass Effect 3 is different because the main plot finally takes precedence here. Is that good or bad? Well, up until the finale it seemed to work for most people so I guess it is a good thing.

Point is, the game does have an actual plot and purpose. You choose to ignore it because it suits your argument. 

Mass Effect 3 is the ONLY game it the series that manages to combine BOTH strong plot prgression WITH character development.

ME1 had only plot progression, ME2 had only character development.

Nevermind that ME2 only develops their characters in a bubble when its their time, they aren't developed in the plot. ME3 develops their characters in the plot, especially the squad.

So in a way ME3's character development is even better than ME2's.

It can be argued yes.

The big issue though is Mass Effect 2 was able to juggle character development well. It was in a vacumn and kind of timed, but characters acted in character outside of their specific missions. The writing and pacing of the characters was very strong in 2, versus 1. 

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

ME1's plot was about the assault on Eden Prime and pursuit of a rogue spectre. 

The stuff you refer to was mostly in the background until near the end. 

Isn't that the reason people hate the Catalyst?

The difference is that all that converged very well at the end. All the visions, all the clues, everything made sense. 

There was never any "space magic" either just conventional stuff taking on an epic importance. 

 

I'm sorry, i'm calling bull**** on this one. The space magic was strong in Mass Effect 1. REALLY strong if you add up all the clues and how the plot devices worked, from using beacons to leave visions on people, to having an Asari transfer a cipher from a PLANT MONSTER onto you through a mind meld, and so forth...

thats not space magic? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:26 .

[txgoldrush]

savionen wrote...

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Zenor wrote...

Also...Vigil. He was hinted nowhere until he came out of nowhere and said "HEY! USE THIS THING! IT OPEN UP CITADEL! KTHXBAI!"...? I may be completely wrong but if it wasn't for Mr. Random over there I don't think Shepard could of done much could he?

Ugh, Vigil. I've seen people say they thought that was a highlight of the game, but all it seemed to me was "lol giant exposition dump from nowhere"! Boring as hell.

Still better than Catalyst though.

An exposition dump is a lot better than a literal dump.

txgoldrush wrote...

Zenor wrote...

Also...Vigil.
He was hinted nowhere until he came out of nowhere and said "HEY! USE
THIS THING! IT OPEN UP CITADEL! KTHXBAI!"...? I may be completely wrong
but if it wasn't for Mr. Random over there I don't think Shepard could
of done much could he?

THIS

Vigil comes out of
completely nowhere....far worse than the Catalyst, who as actually
introduced as a MacGuffin early in the game.

A lot of ME1 fans wear lead coats....

Because what Vigil had to say was pretty interesting. The Catalyst was poorly written and told you about how ME1 and ME2 didn't matter and how the Reapers were puppets.

Not so in the EC, he was in the original, but he was fixed.

And no where does he apply that they are his puppets, in fact, it isn't the case...especially if the new DLC info is real.

[txgoldrush]

LinksOcarina wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

the reason Mass Effect 2 is the best game in the series is the writing was focused on the best part of the series; the characters.

Seriously? You think a game that doesn't have an actual plot and largely revolves around the daddy issues of Shepard's goon squad makes a better game than a game with an actual story and plot?

Yep.

Because I actually gave a damn about the characters. In Mass Effect 1 only three out of the six squadmates had a personality; Ashley, Wrex, and arguably Liara.

In Mass Effect 2, save for Zaeed and Kasumi because of the nature of the DLC (although they were good too in retrospect)  can you not say that all 10 squadmates had personalities that were not only interesting, but dynamic enough to be engaged in their plights.

The main story was largely absent in Mass Effect 2, but the bookends of that said story are still threadbare as they were in Mass Effect 1. So really, if you were to look at the plots of both games, there is no difference at all because the main plot is roughly the same length. The side stuff is what matters. Mass Effect 3 is different because the main plot finally takes precedence here. Is that good or bad? Well, up until the finale it seemed to work for most people so I guess it is a good thing.

Point is, the game does have an actual plot and purpose. You choose to ignore it because it suits your argument. 

Mass Effect 3 is the ONLY game it the series that manages to combine BOTH strong plot prgression WITH character development.

ME1 had only plot progression, ME2 had only character development.

Nevermind that ME2 only develops their characters in a bubble when its their time, they aren't developed in the plot. ME3 develops their characters in the plot, especially the squad.

So in a way ME3's character development is even better than ME2's.

It can be argued yes.

The big issue though is Mass Effect 2 was able to juggle character development well. It was in a vacumn and kind of timed, but characters acted in character outside of their specific missions. The writing and pacing of the characters was very strong in 2, versus 1. 

However, 3 is even stronger than 2 in that regard.

There was no vaccuum in ME3 unlike ME2.

DA2 did character development better than ME2 as well.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 03 juillet 2012 - 03:24 .

[Zero132132]

My opinion? ME1's primary job wasn't plot, but setting. It was creating this large world for the rest of the series to take place in. ME2's job was character development, but it kind of introduced plot elements that are absolutely pointless, and entirely self-contained to ME2 (the Collectors had nothing to do with either ME1 or ME3). It wasn't really part of the story, and seemed to pretty much exclusively exist for character development. ME3's primary job WAS plot, but by the time it was being made, only 2 or the writers on the team were even part of ME1's writing team, so the story feels a bit out of cohesion with the world introduced in ME1.

That being said, in terms of plot, I'd rate ME1>ME3>ME2. ME2's plot was absolute ****. That game had little attention to detail. Seriously, suddenly instead of having infinite ammo, every single gun in the galaxy, including ones trapped on a planet with Jacob's father for 10 years, use thermal clips? Even though the Salarian councilor actually mentioned the Reapers when telling me thanks for saving his life, and ANY amount of Sovereign tech should prove it isn't Geth, the Council is back to pretending Reapers aren't a thing? The Collectors negate Sovereign's necessity as a being for keeping track of galactic society's progression, and make it bizarre that Sovereign made the incomprehensibly stupid decision to spend hundreds of years with his thumb up his ass until Saren forms an alliance and gets the Geth rather than just asking the Collectors for help.

As for ME1, the primary plot doesn't really make much sense. Why were they trying so hard to find the Conduit when it lead to a place Saren could have walked to? What did he even DO once he was on the Citadel that he couldn't have done if he had just sort of walked in, so long as the Geth and Sovereign still attacked and forced the evacuation of the council? If he hadn't bothered searching for long lost tech, no one ever would have known of his schemes, and Sovereign would have succeeded.

It seems that the majority of fans never noticed problems until they reached the Catalyst (still never thought he was a problem). I still love the series, but people seem to think that everything but the final 20 minutes was flawless. I don't get it.

[ld1449]

txgoldrush wrote...


Drew K treated most of his characters like info dumps.....especially Tali.

Seriously, he is kinda overrated.

Say what you wan tabout Walters, but his team treated their characters as human, not as info dumps.

Which was rather easy to do considering that most, if not all of the universe was already explained in the last two games. And the one time he did need to give us info (Catalyst) there was none at all, not even half a paragraph worth. All n all I think I prefer Drew's style over Walter's Speculation for everyone.